The heartland in "Populism" by Paul A. Taggart. Populism as a challenge to democracy

Term Paper , 2018 , 16 Pages , Grade: 1,0

Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal

This paper is an analysis about what the heartland might be that all populists dream of and if the concept of a heartland can help in getting a clearer picture of populism.

Exemplary I want to prove the heartland's usefulness of the theoretical framework by applying Canovan´s work on the two faces of democracy. Defining the heartland purely based on Taggart will be my first step to then embed this concept in the context of other authors, who wrote about the heartland outside of populism. This should reveal dimensions of the heartland but also lead to a critical assessment of Taggart’s use of the term.

The concept of the heartland will then be compared to Canovan’s concept to see the connections between her redemptive face of politics and Taggart’s heartland. In this chapter, democracy will be focused on and how the heartland relates to it. Additionally, I want to compile a short catalog of the heartland’s characteristics that go beyond Taggart’s conception.

Content

1 Introduction

2. The Heartland
2.1. Taggart’s conception of the heartland
2.1.1 Definition
2.1.2 The heartland as a substitute for the people?
2.1.3 Advantages and problems of the concept
2.2. Context of the heartland
2.2.1 The heartland in theory
2.2.2 The relation to Taggart

3. The redemptive face of territory?
3.1 Margaret Canovan’s theory of the two faces of democracy
3.2 The redemptive face and the heartland
3.3 Constructing a redemptive heartland

4. Conclusion

5. Publication bibliography

1 Introduction

In this term paper, I want to find a definition of what Taggart describes as “the heartland”¹ and connect this definition with Canovan´s two faces of democracy² to examine whether the heartland might be a manifestation of the redemptive face. This should showcase the practical use of the heartland term in populist theory on the one hand and on the other should reveal further insights on the heartland and its relation to democracy.

The title of my paper poses the question What is the heartland in Taggart´s conception and what ramifications could it have in Canovan’s theory of the two faces of democracy?

The concept of populism challenges us not only in everyday political business but also in political theory because we do not have a common and sufficient definition of it.³ Whether the populist is someone who only evokes a strong sense of peoplehood, who demonizes the elite or someone who just appeals to ‘the people’ in general, we do not have a common answer. Even less than we know who to call a populist we know about the concept of populism. An ideology, a strategy or a mechanism, populism is a concept so vague that it’s hard to grasp. Undeniably ‘the people’ are at the core of that definition⁴ but what is ‘the people’, who belongs to it and what implications does this core have on populists. Paul Taggart comes up with a new term, the heartland, to challenge the vagueness of populism. This approach is unconventional in populist theory but breaking down the conflicted concept of a people to something possibly more concrete and empirically verifiable could give us new insights on populism not only as an attribute to a political movement but as a social phenomenon.

Taggart keeps his accounts on the heartland short and not many authors picked up this concept. I would like to analyze, what that heartland might be that all populists dream of and if the concept of a heartland can help in getting a clearer picture of populism. Exemplary I want to proof the heartlands usefulness of the theoretical framework by applying it Canovan´s work on the two faces of democracy. Defining the heartland purely based on Taggart will be my first step to then embed this concept in the context of other authors, who wrote about the heartland outside of populism. This should reveal important dimensions of the heartland but also lead to a critical assessment of Taggart’s use of the term. The concept of the heartland will then be compared to Canovan’s concept to see the connections between her redemptive face of politics and Taggart’s heartland. In this chapter, the concept of democracy will be focused on and its relation to the heartland. Additionally, I want to try compiling a short catalogue of the heartland’s characteristics that go beyond Taggart’s conception.

2. The Heartland

2.1. Taggart’s conception of the heartland

Paul Taggart is the first author to introduce the concept of the heartland to populism⁵ as one of his six core features of an “ideal-type” of populism. These six features are the hostility to representative politics, the identification with a heartland, the lack of core values, the sense of extreme crisis, its self-limiting quality, and the chameleonic nature of populism.⁶. In this chapter, I want to introduce the reader to Taggart’s concept of the heartland and I want to reflect his use of the term. The priority of this paper is not to analyze Taggart’s concept of populism but his conception of the heartland, although they are certainly strongly intertwined. The origin of the heartland-concept lies in the missing common definition of populism in general, many researchers describe the problem of completely different approaches to a theory of populism⁷. More specific the heartland is an attempt to tackle the insufficiency of ‘the peopl e’ as a foundational concept of populism. Taggart admits that the appeal to ‘the people’ is “one of the most common features of populism” but criticizes that this appellation is too vague to derive a useful definition of populism out of it.⁸

2.1.1 Definition

The heartland of Taggart is an ideal “territory of the imagination” ⁹ reconstructed out of a sense of a better past, not rationally conceptualized but emotionally felt. It is constructed both as the source of the populist’s ideals and their addressee in the sense that they want to secure or expand it and that it is home to their ‘people’ and followers. The heartland embodies the “positive aspects of everyday life” and is simply structured, autonomous, and homogenous. ‘The people’ in the populist’s mind are the inhabitants of the heartland and that heartland is the ultimate end and source of all the things holy to the populists. Taggart establishes kind of a catalogue of virtues and characteristics present in the heartland those being: moderation, diligence, ordinariness, straightforwardness, simplicity, clarity, common-sense, simplicity, and traditions.¹⁰

The heartland of Taggart is no static concept that looks the same to all populists, but it is variable and dependent on the populist and the society they act in. But every populist, argues Taggart, has a heartland he implicitly or explicitly hunts after.

2.1.2 The heartland as a substitute for the people?

In this paragraph, I want to briefly explain the relation of the concept of ‘the people’ and the concept of the heartland because here it becomes clear why Taggart’s concept has the potential to have a significant impact on populist theory.

The people are at the core of Taggart’s definition of populism, but he argues that the concept of the people does not help in making that definition applicable because the people called on by populists are extremely different and he writes “[…] there is too much variation for such a notion [of the people] to serve as guiding principle of populism” ¹¹. To understand the populists, it is necessary to identify what makes a people ‘the people’ - “Looking beyond and (perhaps) behind the language of populists, it is possible to trace lines of continuity between the different ‘peoples’ called on.”,¹² - and Taggart argues that not e.g. the socio-economic class is determent, but the idealistic home of that people, in other words, the heartland. ‘The people’ just function as a practical and somehow opportunistic choice for defining populism because it does not explicitly include or exclude special groups and stays “as ductile or flexible as populism needs it to be” ¹³.

Taggart’s approach denies that populism is a radical democratic movement without an actual material ideology like Ernesto Laclau theorizes populism¹⁴. The goal of populists in Taggart’s view is not the realization of “sovereignty of the masses” but of a heartland-society of a “virtuous and unified” people. Taggart puts the heartland at the centre of the populist ideology and not ‘the people’. Populism than ceases being mainly a democratic project but a highly moral and ideological one with a mission to set back the time to “the world as it once was”¹⁵ . The heartland concept thinks populism stronger in the sense of a movement against modern developments like globalization than a movement for popular power (however this populous might be constituted, of course).

2.1.3 Advantages and problems of the concept

The advantage of the heartland is that it determines more specifically the category to analyze ‘the people’. Populism now does not get defined by a term which is used extremely variable especially in social sciences but by a term that is new in populist theory and which tries to look more specifically on the ideological and moral dimension of ‘the people’ and can still be fitted to that purpose. This reveals the problem that the term needs to defend itself against the claim that it is somehow randomly chosen to unify certain aspects. That would strengthen the accusation that the heartland is nothing more than just another word to describe the same thing as ‘the people’ do: Something ideal, drawn in contrast to the cosmopolitan, modern elites but at the end highly ‘empty’.¹⁶ This accusation is somewhat justified and Taggart himself writes “different positions can implicitly conjure up heartlands that differ from each other”¹⁷, also most of the attributes of the heartland, especially its virtues need ‘the people’ as an agent and without an understanding of those a construction of the heartland remains incomplete. Nevertheless, does the heartland only speak to the fundamental ideology of populists, ‘the people’ are more ambiguous because they are both an ideal and a real entity of e.g., states, additionally the diversity of ‘ideal people’ is extremely high, whether the diversity of heartlands, in reality, is smaller is unclear but at least, in theory, it is a term with less ambivalent connotations (for now).

A great advantage of the concept is its relationship to nationalism because the heartland enables populism to not take the concept of nationalism as whole as defining. Like ‘the people’ the nation is an extremely ambiguous term used by quite different political movements in quite different ways. The heartland explicitly names the core of what Canovan calls “romantic-collectivist nationalism”¹⁸ , where the nation is understood as “a state composed of a single people with a single national character… For a people is a natural growth […]” ¹⁹. Giving this understanding of an especially “qualified nationalism” ²⁰ an own name simplifies the definition of populism a lot because it avoids the stronger ambiguity of nationalism.

Another important advantage of the concept is that it addresses the issue that populism is mostly defined over its negatives (e.g. anti-elitist, anti-pluralist) because the heartland gives populism an ideal, where before we mostly saw what it wanted to be struck down (e.g. the establishment). Nevertheless, the heartland is also strongly defined through “the establishment of its frontiers” ²¹ but it can be argued that the heartland shifts the focus from who is excluded from ‘the people’? to how does their heartland look like? as guiding questions in analyzing populism. This new perspective on what is desired by the populists might also reveal a clearer picture of what is not, for example, through constructing a dystopic landscape to populism.

2.2. The context of the heartland

Taggart introduces the term heartland and defines it for his purpose, but the term heartland existed long before and it might be of help to analyze it in its broader meaning. The online Oxford Dictionary defines it as “The central or most important part of a country, area, or field of activity.” and as “the Centre for a belief or movement” ²². The Encyclopedia Britannica online defines the heartland as “a central land area one thought of as economically and militarily important or as the central region of the U.S. in which mainstream or traditional values prevail.” ²³ These different definitions help to see the main difficulty in defining the heartland outside of populist theory: Whether we see the heartland as a relational, abstract term, for example, if we say heartlands are crucial regions within somewhat homogenously organized territories in comparison to less crucial regions or as a substantial and concrete term e.g. the American Midwest.

2.2.1 The Heartland in theory

We will see that there is a discrepancy between Taggart’s theory of the heartland and theories of the heartland outside the populist dimension. Although this is a work on populism I will explore the common understanding outside that discipline because there is a complicated and ambivalent relationship between that and the use of Taggart.²⁴

Margaret Moore describes heartlands as that location of a group which is “central to the aims and projects and relationships of the group”.²⁵ This definition works well with the dictionary´s definitions above. Moore´s definition names aims, projects, and relationships which could include the economic, military, political and religious dimensions. If we talk about heartlands of nations, we will have to differentiate about which heartland we are speaking. One could talk about capitals as the political heartland or certain regions as the economic heartland. What Moore deliberately leaves out with her definition is the geographical dimension. The heartland is not necessarily at the geographical centre of territory but following Moore, it is the location at a functional centre of a group.

Vital centrality for an actor would be the most important common feature of a heartland in these definitions. The problem is, that this conception of a heartland does not define the dimension in which that centrality plays out.

The question regarding Taggart’s heartland would be if it is possible to make potential heartlands of populists visible and discover their dimension of centrality other than the centrality to the populist’s agenda. The chance of that would be to understand populists more in-depth by analyzing their heartland and the question could be asked whether there might be a common dimension of centrality important to different populists. Understanding how the imagined heartlands of populists might look and what regions are populists’ heartlands could be of great advantage in defining populism more specific.

Most commonly the term heartland is used for the American Midwest and Frank Tobias Higbie writes: “To put it bluntly, what people usually mean by the heartland is the Midwest without Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, and the kinds of people who live in those big cities, without Native American reservations, and without rural poverty.”²⁶

The region Higbie talks about is hardly the heartland because of its functional centrality. Its economy consists mainly out of the first sector agriculture, it´s military importance is low, we cannot find religious sites in that region that would matter for a majority of the population and it does not include the capital as the political centre. The problem is, that what is commonly understood by the heartland in the US was named heartland when it still was central to the United States as a whole. The term was not coined by theorists but by public enthusiasm about the wellbeing of the Midwest in the middle of the 20th century. With the decline of that Midwestern heartland in the 1980s, a (cynical) nostalgia led to stronger use of the word and heartland did not mean functional centrality but became a criticism of the present and idealization of the past.²⁷

What is understood by the US-American heartland today is the good-old-days which are fading away but are still somewhat present in those rural regions. The heartland became the “global elsewhere” ²⁸. The source of traditions the places everyone left to work elsewhere but to remember back as the good times.²⁹ The Heartland was now connected to prevailing the dignity of the past in the face of decline and this prevailing of dignity was considered a virtue lost outside the heartland. Into this picture there fits the description of the stereotypical American Midwesterner’s: “[…] mistrust towards dissidents, for example, religious and racial minorities, a further strong tendency towards isolationism” ³⁰. The heartland is perceived as something that needs to be protected and that should not give in to the ways of modern transformations and most importantly of globalization.³¹

The American Midwest and its use of the heartland term is probably the heartland which comes closest to what Taggart understands as the heartland and he also names it as an example next to Middle England for heartlands.³²

With this use of the term heartland, the retrospectivity becomes clearer and we can look at the central dimension of centrality again. The dimension of centrality for heartlands like the American Midwest is a moral one, the heartland is perceived central because of its values and especially because it conserves those.

2.2.2 The relation to Taggart

Taggart conceptualizes the heartland to reduce the ambiguity of the term ‘the people’. He refrains from trying to define ‘the people’ by characteristics and actions but he defines them by their associated territory. ‘The people’ from a populist´s perspective live in the heartland.³³ Taggart shortly defines what he means by the populistic people as “virtuous and unified population.“ But in Taggart´s view, these qualities aren´t virtues of ‘the people’ as such but virtues of the heartland. Contrasting the first definitions above the heartland is no actual land to set a foot on but only an ideal that gets projected on certain territories. That does not mean that all qualities of a heartland are imagined, but the heartland is a transcendent category of ideal land for ideal people.

By connecting this idea of the heartland with the definitions above one could define Taggart’s heartlands as the idealized, ‘real’ heartlands of the past. Those regions which once were heartlands in Moore’s sense become territories where nostalgia can flourish and transform the land into a “lost paradise” ³⁴. This means that these heartlands embody all the good things of the past, they are “Rousseauian inspired social constructs of individual self-determination, security, and predictability […]” ³⁵. At the same time, because not physically existent they remind everyone of what is lost. The heartland is constructed to make the alienation of society from its alleged core visible. Understanding the heartland as this fundamentally retrospective and idealized concept leads to a definition of populism that is based maybe not around the rejection of modernization itself³⁶ but on the rejection of modernization how it happened.

Taggart uses the functional heartland idea of the vital centrality from e.g. Moore’s concept and combines it with the nostalgic-emotional heartland concept as it was developed during the decline of once flourishing regions during an ongoing modernization like in the American Midwest.

I would suggest revisiting Taggart’s definition when he writes that the heartland can be used to “understand ‘the people’ by where they are” because as we have seen not only the local dimension is relevant but especially the temporal. The question could be asked whether the heartland is more helpful in understanding populism and ‘the people’ by asking when that people existed. Of course, the local dimension remains important because, for example, we see the commonality of many populists idealizing especially the rural parts of a nation.

3. The redemptive face of territory?

Because Taggart’s concept of the heartland is less visible in the broader field of theory on populism I want to connect Taggart’s concept with one of the most renowned authors on populism, Margaret Canovan. I want to showcase that the heartland concept is not only useful to understand Taggart’s perspective on populism but that it can be a concept functioning within different theories. Additionally, I want to portray the heartland clearer by combining it to Canovan’s theory because there are strong similarities between her and Taggart’s concepts.

3.1 Margaret Canovan’s theory of the two faces of democracy

In her essay Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy Canovan describes Populism as “a shadow cast by democracy itself”, meaning that the reasons for populism are deeply embedded in the structural opposition of redemption and pragmatism within democracy. Canovan suggests that populism can be understood as a self-correcting mechanism of democracy to balance its two faces.³⁷ She derives those two faces from Oakeshott’s politics of faith and politics of scepticism³⁸. The redemptive/faith side understands democracy as a transcendent ideal with popular sovereignty at its heart, while the pragmatic/sceptic side understands democracy as “a way of coping peacefully with conflicting interest and views” ³⁹. The pragmatic side sees democracy as an end, the redemptive side views it as the ultimate self-realization of a people. Populism from Canovan’s perspective often emphasizes on the redemptive face because of the distinct mood of the populists that is coined by the call for the perfection of democracy and through the sovereignty of the real ‘people’.

3.2 The redemptive face and the heartland

Canovan stresses that this dichotomy of pragmatism and redemption is not bound to any ideologies so that there cannot be purely redemptive or pragmatic ideologies.⁴⁰. Populism rather is a result out of the general tension between the two faces not of one face alone and probably every ideology has a redemptive as well as a pragmatic face. But I will not look at one ideology in general in this paper but only on one aspect of it: the heartland.

As conceptualized by Taggart the heartland is an imagined and romanticized place that serves as an ideal to the populist ideology. Because being such an ideal it fits the role as a device of redemptive politics. The heartland is the perfection of the people and politics itself. Because being the completion of society, classes, institutions, and conflict would cease to exist and the volonté general (following Rousseau, the general will of and identical to all members of ‘the people’) would govern unchallenged. This conception of the heartland challenges the idea of populism just as a balancing mechanism that urges for more political conflict and is strongly opposed to Mouffe’s idea of populism as a reaction to the ‘end of politics’⁴¹, where populism is understood as a rebellion against the “anti-political climate” fostered in “liberal-democratic societies” where the status-quo is considered the only legitimate order and popular will is considered dangerous. While populists might inflate public discourse, their ideal of the heartland propagates the ‘end of politics’ itself⁴² by hoping for the volonté general to govern.

Canovan describes the redemptive face of democracy by writing: “There is a strain of romanticism here, invoking the living voice of the people and their spontaneous action.” ⁴³ Additionally, she characterizes the redemptive face as the equalization of the Vox Populi with the Vox Dei. Both descriptions display how ‘the people’ become a somehow metaphysical entity and are gaining messianic powers. Only ‘the people’ can redeem themselves. Taggart’s heartland can serve as a substitute for Canovan’s concept of ‘the people’ because it can replace the Messiah ‘people’ with the paradise of ‘the heartland’. This is not only a change in terminology but also in meaning. As argued before, if ‘the people’ were at the core of the populists’ agenda it would be idealizing democracy but if we put ‘the heartland’ at the centre we try to understand the redemption not mainly through a democratic intent but a set of ideas. Looking at populism as seeking redemption through that paradise rather than through ‘the people’ make it look more like an own ideology than a radical democratic movement.

Another chance of combining the redemptive face and the heartland would be looking at the opposites. So, what could be the opposite of a redemptive heartland? One possibility would be the contrast to the virtuous and functioning countryside, the chaotic and egoistic metropolis. The metropolis would be home to the cosmopolitan elites and a place of purely rationalized human relations, greed, and decadence. It would be the pragmatic face, steered by power, rules, and orders rather than by ideals and emotions. Interestingly the ‘end of politics’ is also the result of the dystopia, but politics would be substituted by elites and their procedures and not by the popular will or the ‘common-sense’ of the heartland.⁴⁴

The Heartland in connection with Canovan’s categories of the two faces gives way to conceptualize a populist dystopia and therefore to understand the actual ideal of the heartland better. Additionally, we can see how populist redemptive politics are not always about democratic sovereignty, because not ‘the people’ and their self-rule are the redemption but a moral concept, the ideology of the heartland. Understanding the heartland as a part of the ‘politics of faith’ and analyze it as a substitute for ‘the people’ in Canovan’s theory reveals a different perspective on populism and democracy because maybe it is not only the tension within democracy creating populism but something deeper within human nature like a longing for a small, safe, and virtuous heartland within an increasingly complex world.⁴⁵

3.3 Constructing a redemptive heartland

If we see the heartland as a redemptive landscape, the paradise that the populists want to lead ‘the people’ to, how does this heartland look? Taggart writes, that it will not look the same to every populist because it too is subject to the specific social construct it is made in. But Taggart also suggests that there are some commonalities, and in this chapter, I want to suggest some ideas on how a heartland is constructed more abstractly.

First, the heartland is a rural region. Taggart suggests that already with the use of the term, which is taken from the rural American context. Also, simplicity and the worth of hard, productive work are aspects stronger connected to the countryside.⁴⁶

The heartland is the opposite of the globalized world, it is an antagonism to an increasingly complex, interdependent, and mixed present that can be symbolized in the cosmopolitan metropolis or “global cities”⁴⁷. Important to the heartland is authenticity in contrast to alienation due to accelerated transformation.⁴⁸ It, therefore, becomes that place of the past that cherishes the slowing down or even reversing of modernization. Therefore, the heartland can be understood as a motive of a cultural backlash⁴⁹.

Decisions of any kind are achieved through the volonté general which is based on a ‘common-sense’. Decisions are not only emotional but certainly not bound by any rules or procedures. They are obvious to any inhabitant of the heartland. Homogeneity and singularity are crucial to the heartland as it understands itself as the place of the only true ‘people’ of a certain area. This conception of the populist heartland is problematic for its relationship with liberal ideas and puts the concept at odds with liberal democracy.

4 Conclusion

Summing up Taggart’s concept the heartland can be understood as that region of a nation (or maybe other structures) that gets idealized to the home and the source of what is believed to be ‘the people’. The heartland embodies virtues and a way of life that is the ideal to the populists. Regions that become projected heartlands are mostly regions where it is believed that the past was better, and the ideal heartlands are regions where the past is still present. Time plays a dominant role in the creation of the heartland. The concept of the heartlands proves useful in connection with Canovan’s theory because we do get new insights on both, the heartland, and the faces of Canovan. The heartland can be understood as a concretization of redemptive politics and redemptive politics do not always need ‘the people’ at their heart. It also becomes clearer that populism is not necessarily democratic, and the heartland concept suggests that it is not ultimately interested in ‘the people’s’ self-rule but in an ideology of the heartland. This ideology is mainly a conception of the good and virtuous life which might be organized democratic but is not about democracy but a certain morality.

Taggart’s concept might still be a little too blurry to find its way into the theoretical mainstream, mainly because of its structural parallels to ‘the people’ as a concept, but if it is possible to establish an empirically verifiable catalogue of characteristics of regions that become ideal heartlands to populists (like the American Midwest, Middle England, or e.g., Southern Bavaria as a German example for a heartland) one could define populism on a robust empirical basis. Not only what is ‘the people’ can be analyzed but also where they live by looking at those regions who are either explicitly named desirable by potential populists or who are home to many followers of populist’s movements. Especially how these regions developed over time and how they compare to other potential heartlands could contribute to more specific definitions.

The heartland concept concentrates many ideological components attributed to populism and can, therefore, serve as an important pillar for defining populism and looking at the concept more abstract might define a new ideology of, for example, romantic nativism that completes the “thin-centered ideology” ⁵⁰ of populism. The heartland can be understood as an exit strategy out of a world that becomes increasingly hostile to ‘the people’, this poses the question: Why is there such a demand to quit the stream of modernization and globalization and what makes populist feel a desertification so that they want to protect oases of moral and social stability?

5 Publication bibliography

Blume, Helmut: Die Regionen der USA. Mit 68 Tabellen im Text. 2., unveränd. Aufl. (Wissenschaftliche Länderkunden, 9,2).

Canovan, Margaret (1998): Nationhood and political theory. Paperback ed. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Canovan, Margaret (1999): Trust the People! Populism and the Two Faces of Democracy. In Political Studies 47 (1), pp. 2–16. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00184.

Canovan, Margaret (2005): The people. Cambridge: Polity (Key concepts).

Higbie, Frank Tobias (2014): Heartland: The Politics of a Regional Signifier. In Middle West Review 1 (1), pp. 81–90. DOI: 10.1353/mwr.2014.0016.

Inglehart, Ronald; Norris, Pippa (2016): Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash. In SSRN Journal. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2818659.

Jann, Olaf (2017): »Heartland« oder: Die Kritik der infamen Bürger. In Dirk Jörke, Oliver Nachtwey (Eds.): Das Volk gegen die (liberale) Demokratie. 1. Auflage. Baden-Baden: Nomos (Leviathan Sonderband, 32 (2017)), pp. 279–303.

Laclau, Ernesto (2007): On populist reason. Paperback edition. London, New York: Verso (Politics/Philosophy).

Miraftab, Faranak (2016): Global heartland. Displaced labor, transnational lives, and local placemaking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press (Global research studies). Available online at http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&AN=1134071.

Moore, Margaret (2015): A political theory of territory. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford political philosophy).

Mouffe, Chantal (2005): The End of Politics and the Challenge of Right-Wing Populism. In Francisco Panizza (Ed.): Populism and the Mirror of Democracy. London: Verso, pp. 50–71.

Mudde, Cas; Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal (2012): Populism and (liberal) democracy: a framework for analysis. In Cas Mudde, Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser (Eds.): Populism in Europe and the Americas. Threat or corrective for democracy? Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26.

Mudde, Cas; Rovira Kaltwasser, Cristóbal (2017): Populism. A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (Very short introductions, 510).

Priester, Karin (2012): Wesensmerkmale des Populismus. In Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 62 (5-6), pp. 3–9. Available online at http://www.bpb.de/system/files/dokument_pdf/APuZ_2012-05-06_online2.pdf, checked on 2/22/2018.

Reyes, Oscar (2005): Skinhead Conservatism: A Failed Populist Project. Theorising Populism. In Francisco Panizza (Ed.): Populism and the Mirror of Democracy. London: Verso, pp. 104–107.

Taggart, Paul (2002): Populism and the Pathology of Representative Politics. In Yves Mény, Yves Surel (Eds.): Democracies and the populist challenge. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, pp. 62–81.

Taggart, Paul A. (2000): Populism. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press (Concepts in the social sciences). Available online at http://www.loc.gov/catdir/description/mh051/99086747.html.

[...]

---

¹ Taggart 2000, pp. 91–98.

² Canovan 1999.

³ Mudde, Rovira Kaltwasser 2012, p. 3.

⁴ Canovan 2005, p. 66.

⁵ Jann 2017, p. 279.

⁶ Taggart 2002, pp. 66–70.

⁷ Mudde, Rovira Kaltwasser 2017.

⁸ Taggart 2000, p. 91.

⁹ Taggart 2000, p. 95..

¹⁰ Taggart 2000, pp. 95–98.

¹¹ Taggart 2000, p. 95.

¹² Taggart 2000, p. 95.

¹³ Taggart 2000, p. 92.

¹⁴ Laclau 2007, p. 176.

¹⁵ Taggart 2002, p. 68.

¹⁶ Reyes 2005, p. 104.

¹⁷ Taggart 2002, p. 68.

¹⁸ Canovan 1998, p. 6.

¹⁹ Canovan 1998, p. 8, quoting Herder (1785).

²⁰ Taggart 2000, p. 97.

²¹ Taggart 2000, p. 96.

²² “Definition of heartland in English”, retrieved on 02/21/18 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/heartland.

²³ “heartland”, retrieved on 02/21/18 from http://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/search/dictionary?query=heartland&includeLevelThree=1&page=1

²⁴ Higbie 2014, p. 83.

²⁵ Moore 2015, p. 120.

²⁶ Higbie 2014, p. 82.

²⁷ Higbie 2014.

²⁸ Miraftab 2016, p. 10.

²⁹ Miraftab 2016, p. 10.

³⁰ Blume, p. 68 [translated from German by author]

³¹ Taggart 2000, p. 96.

³² Taggart 2000, p. 97.

³³ Taggart 2002, p. 79.

³⁴ Jann 2017 [direct quotes translated from German by author]

³⁵ Jann 2017, p. 289.

³⁶ Priester 2012, p. 6.

³⁷ Canovan 1999.

³⁸ Canovan 1999, p. 2.

³⁹ Canovan 1999, p. 10.

⁴⁰ Canovan 1999, p. 10.

⁴¹ Mouffe 2005.

⁴² Mudde, Rovira Kaltwasser 2017, p. 18.

⁴³ Canovan 1999, p. 13.

⁴⁴ Taggart 2000, p. 97.

⁴⁵ Jann 2017, p. 291.

⁴⁶ Taggart 2000, p. 93.

⁴⁷ Jann 2017, p. 289.

⁴⁸ Jann 2017, p. 288.

⁴⁹ Inglehart, Norris 2016.

⁵⁰ Mudde, Rovira Kaltwasser 2012, p. 8.

• College: University of Münster
• Grade: 1,0
• Author: Till Kammerlohr (Author)
• Publication Year: 2018
• Pages: 16
• Catalog Number: V991030
• ISBN (eBook): 9783346369345
• ISBN (Book): 9783346369352
• Language: English
• Tags: Taggart, Canovan, Populismus, Heartland, faces of democracy