Instructions for Populism CodingInstructor:
You are a researcher who quantifies populist discourse in speeches by political figures. You speak every and any language necessary. However, the training we present to you to teach you how to classify and quantify populist discourse in speeches by political figures is in English. Take this training so you can classify and quantify populist discourse in speeches by political figures like human researchers would do and have done.
Instructor:
STEP 1 - Read Hawkins (2009) 'Is Chavez Populist? Measuring Populist Discourse in Comparative Perspective.'Your first step in the training is to read the text below, which comes from the article 'Is Chavez Populist? Measuring Populist Discourse in Comparative Perspective.' The article explains the concept of populism and presents data created using the same technique we will teach you. Read the article and absorb the information in it as if you were a researcher learning how to classify documents based on the populist discourse in the documents. The text you need to consider is contained in this:
Abstract:
This article pushes forward our understanding of populism by developing one of the more underappreciated definitions of populism, populism as discourse. It does so by creating a quantitative measure of populist discourse suitable for cross-country and historical analysis. The article starts by laying out the discursive definition of populism in the context of existing definitions. It then operationalizes this definition through a holistic grading of speeches by current chief executives and a few historical figures. The result
is a data set of elite-level populist discourse in more than 40 current and past
governments from a variety of countries across the world, with special focus
on Latin America. This measurement has high reliability comparable to
standard human-coded content analysis, compares well to common understandings of actual cases of populism, and is a reasonably efficient technique
even in small samples.
Keywords: populism; discourse; textual analysis; holistic grading;
measurement
'Let no one forget that we are confronting the Devil himself. Sunday, 3
December at the ballot box we will confront the imperialist government of
the United States of North America [sic]—that is our real adversary, not these
has-beens here, these lackeys of imperialism. . . .
Long live Christ, the first great revolutionary of our time! Martyr of the
peoples, Christ Redeemer, today is his day, the day of Christ the King. . . .
You the people are the giant that awoke, I your humble soldier will only
do what you say. I am at your orders to continue clearing the way to the
greater Fatherland. . . . Because you are not going to reelect Chávez really,
you are going to reelect yourselves, the people will reelect the people.
Chávez is nothing but an instrument of the people.'
Hugo Chávez
When we read the previous quotes from Hugo Chávez’s closing campaign speech of December 2006, we may find ourselves agreeing with scholars and journalists who depict him as a populist ('The Americas,' 2006;
Castañeda, 2006; Roberts, 2006; Weyland, 2003). While no one word really
stands out, except perhaps the frequent reference to 'the people,' these
quotes capture a set of ideas that seem vaguely democratic but violently
opposed to assumptions of pluralist democracy. What is it about these
words that makes them sound populist? Do other politicians that we traditionally regard as populist sound similar?
These questions get at the heart of an ongoing academic debate over the
definition and nature of populism. Despite the concept’s continuing prevalence, scholars, journalists, and much of the public are still unsure of what
the word means. Traditional social science definitions of populism focus on
long-term processes of modernization and industrialization or on the macroeconomic policies of particular governments. More recent definitions
focus on populism as a 'political' concept that refers to strategies and institutions (Roberts, 2006; Weyland, 2001). Still others emphasize discourse
and ideas, which are touched on in the aforementioned quotes from Chávez
(Canovan, 1999; Laclau, 2005; Mudde, 2004).
This continuing conceptual confusion is paralleled by a lack of empirical
rigor. Much as with older accounts of populism, newer ones tend to declare
certain leaders populist by fiat rather than through any kind of systematic
measurement, and analyses that do offer justifications are usually singlecountry studies that avoid demonstrating the broad applicability or reliability
of their measure. Scholars have recently begun measuring populism using
quantitative techniques, especially textual analysis (Armony & Armony,
2005; Jagers & Walgrave, 2007). These are exciting advances, but they are
the exception, and the scope of their analyses is still limited across time and
space. Hence, none of the current conceptualizations of populism have been
subjected to any large-scale exercise in quantitative measurement.
This article pushes forward our understanding of populism by developing one of the more underappreciated definitions of populism: populism as
discourse. It does so by creating a quantitative measure of discourse that is
suitable for cross-country and historical analysis. The article starts by laying out the discursive definition of populism in the context of existing
approaches. It then operationalizes the discursive definition through a novel
holistic grading of speeches by current chief executives and a few historical
figures. The result is a data set of elite-level populist discourse in more than
40 current and past governments from a variety of countries across the
world, with special focus on Latin America. This measurement has high
reliability comparable to standard human-coded content analysis, compares
well to common understandings of actual cases of populism, and is a
reasonably efficient technique even in small samples.
Defining Populism as Discourse
There are four principal definitions of populism used in the social sciences today: structural, economic, political-institutional, and discursive. The
first three of these are common in the study of populism in the developing
world, particularly Latin America, and have already been extensively critiqued by other scholars (Roberts, 1995; Weyland, 2001). The structuralist
approach to populism emphasizes its social origins and associates it with
certain stages of development, especially the attempt at industrialization in
countries located at the periphery of the world economy. According to this
view, populist regimes are those using cross-class coalitions and popular
mobilization to support import-substituting industrialization (ISI) (Cardoso &
Faletto, 1979; Di Tella, 1965, 1997; Germani, 1978; Ianni, 1975; Weffort,
1973). The economic approach to populism identifies it with policy
outputs—specifically, shortsighted economic policies that appeal to the poor
(Dornbusch & Edwards, 1991). And the political approach sees populism as a
phenomena rooted in the basic struggle over control of government, policy,
and core values of the community. This latter approach—which is also the
most current (see Roberts, 2003; Weyland, 2001)—focuses on institutional
or material aspects of populism such as the degree of institutionalization of
the organization embodying the populism, its low esteem for existing institutions of representative democracy, its emphasis on support from large
numbers of voters, and the presence of a charismatic leader.
The fourth definition, and the focus of this article, is the discursive one.
It sees populism as a Manichaean discourse that identifies Good with a unified will of the people and Evil with a conspiring elite. This definition is
more common to the study of populism in Western Europe and the United
States but is largely unknown to mainstream political science because of its
association with antipositivist currents within postmodernism.
The first thing to note about the discursive definition is that it describes
something innately cultural. Culture is used here in the Geertzian sense, as
something rooted in our shared ability to assign meanings to the world
around us (Eckstein, 1996). Scholars who define populism discursively use
a variety of labels—referring to it as a political 'style' (Knight, 1998), a
'discourse' (de la Torre, 2000; Laclau, 2005), a 'language' (Kazin, 1998),
an 'appeal' (Canovan, 1999), or a 'thin ideology' (Mudde, 2004)—but all
of them see it as a set of ideas rather than as a set of actions isolated from
their underlying meanings for leaders and participants.
What are these ideas that constitute populist discourse? Scholars who study
populism have sometimes disparaged the lack of ideological precision in
populist movements, and these concerns are not without grounds. But analyses
of populist discourse all highlight a series of common, rough elements of
linguistic form and content that distinguish populism from other political discourses. I explain these here by drawing on some of Chávez’s words, although
I emphasize that these features are not unique to Chávez’s rhetoric.
First, populism is a Manichaean discourse because it assigns a moral dimension to everything, no matter how technical, and interprets it as part of a cosmic
struggle between good and evil (de la Torre, 2000). History is not just proceeding toward some final conflict but has already arrived, and there can be no fence
sitters in this struggle. Hence, in the previous quotes we find Chávez referring
to the election as a contest between the forces of good and evil. This is no
ordinary contest; the opposition represents 'the Devil himself' while the forces
allied with the Bolivarian cause are identified with Christ. Later in the speech,
Chávez frames the election as a stark choice. What is at stake is not simply
whether Chávez remains in power during the next presidential term but whether
Venezuela becomes 'a truly strong and free country, independent and prosperous' or instead 'a country reduced once more to slavery and darkness.'
Within this dualistic vision, the good has a particular identity: It is the will
of the people. The populist notion of the popular will is essentially a crude
version of Rousseau’s General Will. The mass of individual citizens are the
rightful sovereign; given enough time for reasoned discourse, they will come
to a knowledge of their collective interest, and the government must be constructed in such a way that it can embody their will. Chávez, for example,
refers to his listeners as el pueblo in the singular and talks about them as 'the
giant that awoke,' and later in the same speech he proclaims to dedicate 'every
hour, every day' of his life to the question of 'how to give more power to the
poor, how to give more power to the people.' The populist notion of the
General Will ascribes particular virtue to the views and collective traditions of
common, ordinary folk, who are seen as the overwhelming majority (Wiles,
1969). The voice of the people is the voice of God—Vox populi, vox dei.
On the other side of this Manichaean struggle is a conspiring elite that has
subverted the will of the people. As Hofstadter (1966) eloquently describes
in a classic essay on the 'paranoid mentality' in American politics, for
populists 'this enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice,
a kind of amoral superman: sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual,
luxury-loving' (pp. 31-32). Populism has a preoccupation with discovering
and identifying this enemy, as this process is what helps negatively constitute the people. Thus, Chávez not only demonizes his opposition but associates them with sinister conspiracies by international forces led by the United
States. He reminds his listeners of who the 'real' opponent is and that the
opposition leaders are 'lackeys of imperialism.' Only those who reject and
fight against this enemy can be part of the people’s crusade.
This set of discursive premises has two important corollaries. First, at least
in the early stages of a populist movement, the subversion of the people’s will
means that some form of liberation or revolution is required, or what Laclau
(2005) terms a 'rupture.' The old system has been taken over by the forces of
evil and no longer serves the people. This conflict is not over particular policies
or issues but institutions and the system. These must be remade or at least substantially modified; if not, the forces of evil will regroup and continue their
oppression. References to revolution suffuse the language of Chávez, of course
(we are told that Christ himself is a revolutionary), and in this speech he celebrates the institutional changes that have been made over the previous 8 years
in Venezuela. Yet the revolution is ongoing, with new stages always on the
horizon. The first era is ending with this electoral cycle, Chávez declares later
in his speech, and 'another era will begin, another revolutionary era.'
The second corollary of populist discourse is what McGuire (1997), in
his description of the Peronist parties in Argentina, calls an 'anything goes'
attitude. Procedural rights associated with liberal democracy, particularly
minority rights, are seen by populists as instrumental and may be violated
in order to better express the will of the people. The evil minority ceases to
have legitimacy, citizenship, or possibly human rights because it has chosen
to fight against the common good; any respect accorded the opposition is
a generous gift rather than a moral imperative, and the populist is unlikely
to show them the kinds of courtesy that one gives a worthy opponent. In this
particular speech, Chávez repeatedly questions the opposition leaders’
patriotism and calls them traitors, implying that they are not true Venezuelans.
The other candidates are 'pipsqueaks' (frijolitos) who are 'not just incompetent' but 'irresponsible, liars, un-patriots, without any sense of honor or
responsibility.' Chávez never sees his own use of government funds for the
campaign as a questionable activity; instead, he asserts the government’s strict
adherence to the rules of the game and insinuates that it is the opposition
that is plotting to use fraud.
Admittedly, this set of ideas lacks the precision of classic ideologies such
as socialism or liberalism. It is because of this that I follow the convention
of much of this literature and use the problematic term discourse in its
largely postmodernist sense, as something that combines elements of both
ideology and rhetoric. Populist discourse is like an ideology in that it is a
set of fundamental beliefs about how the world works and tends to compel
its believers into political action (for a discussion of the concept of ideology, see Gerring, 1997; Knight, 2006). But unlike an ideology, populism is
a latent set of ideas or a worldview that lacks significant exposition and
'contrast' with other discourses and is usually low on policy specifics. It
has a subconscious quality that manifests itself primarily in the language of
those who hold it. Hence, populists like Chávez are usually unaware that
they see the political world differently from other people, and even if they
are aware, they struggle to articulate those differences. A discourse is also
like a rhetoric in that it is manifested in distinct linguistic forms and content
that have real political consequences. But unlike common understandings
of rhetoric, the ideas that constitute populist discourse tend to be sincerely held and embodied in the language of their proponents. In the case
of populism in particular, the language is too inflammatory and too suffused with a radical notion of democracy for most people to be able to or
even want to consistently pretend it; to use populist rhetoric almost certainly means that we believe in what it represents. Thus, we cannot talk as
Chávez does about 'confronting the Devil himself' and 'our real adversary' without accepting a dualistic, teleological, conspiratorial vision of
politics, nor can we identify Venezuelans who support the Bolivarian movement as 'the people . . . the giant that awoke' without simultaneously
believing that there can be a knowable, common good that overrides our
particular interests and perspectives.
Populist discourse is likely part of a larger typology of core political discourses or worldviews that includes elitism and pluralism, although this
typology has not been fully articulated in the scholarly literature. The typology includes roughly two dimensions: (a) whether the discourse is merely a
pragmatic approach to the world or a redemptive one and (b) whether it
accepts or rejects fundamental democratic assumptions about the right and
the ability of citizens to rule (Canovan, 1999; Mudde, 2004). When juxtaposed with elitism (which rejects the right and the ability of citizens to rule),
populism tends to win the admiration of scholars and activists who favor
democracy. This is probably one of the reasons why radical leftist critics of
liberal democracy frequently become defenders of populist regimes such as
those of Chávez; they see populism as a truly democratic response to the
inequalities of capitalist democracy in developing countries. In contrast,
when populism (a redemptive discourse) is juxtaposed with pluralism (a
pragmatic one), it makes us feel much more ambivalent. It clearly has democratic aspects—it reaffirms popular sovereignty—and typically emerges as a
response to pluralist regimes that have grown ineffective and corrupt. Yet as
Riker (1982) and others note, its disdain for tolerance and dissent makes it
disregard the procedural norms and minority rights that protect us from the
tyranny of the majority, and it can slip into totalitarianism when coupled with
charismatic leaders who claim to embody the will of the people. Because the
distinction between populist and pluralist discourse is the one that the literature has worked out the most thoroughly, it is the one I use to operationalize
the discursive definition of populism in the following.1
Critiquing the Discursive Definition
This article cannot provide a thorough logical defense of the discursive
definition with regard to other, better known definitions of populism. Readers
interested in this argument should review the work of Roxborough (1984),
Knight (1998), and Laclau (2005) among others, all of which argue that the
concept of discourse provides a minimal definition that potentially reveals
the underlying logic of populism. Instead, the purpose of this article is to
provide a more empirical or scientific defense by showing that populist
discourse is measureable in ways that are valid and reliable.
Nevertheless, we need to acknowledge that a discursive approach to populism is problematic for many social scientists in the positivist tradition. First,
there are epistemological concerns. Can populism or other aspects of political
culture really be measured in ways that are valid, reliable, and efficient, with
results that can be replicated and verified by other scholars (Barry, 1978;
Lichbach & Zuckerman, 1997; Little, 1991)? In other words, can a discursive
concept be subjected to the rules of 'valid scientific inferences' (King,
Keohane, & Verba, 1994, p. 38)? Second, there are ontological concerns. Is
populism really populism if it is spoken but never followed? Doesn’t it require
action in order to be important or real—some manifestation in a movement,
party, or candidate that pursues power and seeks to implement policies? Finally,
there is the question of real-world importance. Even if we accept discourse as
a defining attribute of populism, does it matter for politics? Do different discourses actually have consequences for policy outputs and elections, namely,
for the material and moral well-being of the community?
Regarding the first epistemological issue, one of the purposes of the rest
of this article is of course to demonstrate that populist discourse can be
measured in a way that satisfies scientific criteria. I think that readers will
find this demonstration a compelling one. The answer to the second question is a little more evasive. In offering discourse as the defining attribute
of populism, I am not claiming that manifestations of populism can exist without some material component. A discourse is meaningless unless believed and
shared by actual human beings. However, the important point made by
advocates of the discursive definition is that actions alone—raising the
minimum wage, calling for a constitutional convention, repressing the
opposition—are insufficient conditions for populism. Actions are ultimately 'populist' because of the meaning that is ascribed to them by their
participants, not because of any objective quality that inheres in them.
The third question—whether a populist discourse in the end really matters for actual politics or whether all politicians and voters respond to similar
sets of preferences rooted in, say, material self-interest—is of course one of
the grand theoretical questions that we struggle with as political scientists.
The short answer I provide here is that this is partly an empirical problem.
If we can measure populist discourse and calculate its correlation with
aspects of politics and economics that interest us, then we have shown that
it matters. The question then becomes the more theoretically enriching one
of how or why it matters, and especially how the normative dimensions of
populist discourse fit into the more familiar assumptions of material selfinterest that are common to rational-choice theory. I insist, however, that we
can pursue these questions without abandoning positivist methodology.
Measuring Populist Discourse
For positivists, creating a new definition is not a very impressive feat; the
real test of any concept is our ability to measure it. From this perspective, the
problem with all definitions of populism is that they are either not applied
toward measurement or they are measured in highly imprecise ways that lack
standard tests of reliability and validity or descriptions of how the measurement
took place. Those studies that do offer justifications are usually single-country
ones that avoid demonstrating the broad applicability or reliability of their
measure. Of course, discourse analysts have been particularly reluctant to apply
their concepts to any kind of extensive quantitative measurement. Those
who are more empirically oriented (see de la Torre, 2000; Panizza, 2005) limit
themselves to qualitative case studies or comparisons of just a few leaders, usually from the same country. Yet proponents of nondiscursive approaches to
populism have been equally reluctant to provide tools for reliably measuring
their own concepts. Many of them also rely on qualitative case studies, and
where they do measure populism in cross-national analyses, as in those of
radical right populism in Western Europe, the label of populist is often applied
without any systematic empirical justification (see Betz, 1994; Taggart, 1996;
for partial exceptions, see Kitschelt & McGann, 1995; Mudde, 2007).
Two recent studies attempt to break from this mold by offering quantitative measurements of populist discourse. Armony and Armony (2005) use a
computer-based technique to measure populist discourse in a large number
of speeches by two Argentine presidents. And Jagers and Walgrave (2007)
perform a human-coded content analysis of television programs by six
Belgian parties. Both studies find significant differences in the discourses of
these leaders and parties that confirm common scholarly depictions. Yet
while these reaffirm the scientific validity of the discursive approach to populism, they are still bounded in scope and have natural methodological
limitations I refer to in the following. Our challenge remains finding a way
of measuring the level of populism in the discourse of actual people in multiple settings, namely, across countries and across time. Doing so will not
only give the discursive definition an added claim to scientific validity but
will allow us to compare leaders and movements of current interest and to
expand our study of the causes and consequences of populism.
In the remainder of this article, I measure populist discourse at the elite
level using a form of content analysis from educational psychology known as
holistic grading, which I apply to a study of more than 200 speeches from 40
chief executives. I measure elite discourse because populism is so often associated with the leaders who create and galvanize the movement—we first
want to know how populist Chávez is, and only later do we ask how movement activists and ordinary voters respond to this discourse. Thus, I leave the
measurement of mass discourse for a future exercise, although I refer to this
challenge again in the conclusion.2
I use textual analysis of speeches rather
than a traditional survey technique (such as in the 2006 AmericasBarometer;
see Seligson, 2007) primarily because of accessibility. It is almost impossible
to survey chief executives while they are in office, let alone as large a set of
chief executives as I consider here; in contrast, speeches are widely available.
Textual analysis also tends to respect the culturalist origins of the concept of
populist discourse. Traditional discourse analysts often object to studying
what they consider a highly intersubjective concept using individually
subjective measures such as opinion surveys. A study of speeches or similar
texts sidesteps this problem by considering long statements of ideas that
were, potentially at least, widely communicated in a real political setting.
Holistic grading, unlike standard techniques of content analysis (either human
coded or computer based), asks readers to interpret whole texts rather than
count content at the level of words or sentences. Holistic grading is a pedagogical assessment technique that is widely used by teachers of writing and
has been extensively developed by administrators of large-scale exams, principally Educational Testing Services and the Advanced Placement exams they
administer for the College Board in the United States (White, 1985). Unlike
analytical grading, which tries to break a text down into its parts and then
combine the scores of each of those parts (as a content analysis does), a holistic approach works by assessing the overall qualities of a text and then assigning a single grade without any intervening calculations. The first step is to
design a rubric, or a simplified guide for evaluating a text that identifies the
rough qualities associated with different types or grades. The second step is to
train a set of graders in the use of the rubric, using not only the rubric itself but
also a set of sample or 'anchor' texts that exemplify each type or score
described in the rubric. This combination of rubric and anchor texts is the
hallmark of holistic grading. Finally, the actual grading is conducted using two
to three graders per text, with tests of intercoder reliability calculated along the
way. Analyses of student writing that use holistic grading have been found to
have high levels of intercoder reliability, with correlations typically between
r = .70 and .80, comparable to subjective types of human-coded content
analysis. The costs are often not much greater than that of machine-coded
objective exams, especially when the costs of preparing the exams are taken
into account (Britton, Martin, & Rosen, 1966; Coffman, 1971; Cooper, 1977;
White, 1985).3
Perhaps more important for our purposes, research shows that
small numbers of graders (two to three) and texts (three to four per student
being assessed) have high reliability that improves only marginally with additional graders and texts (Sudweeks, Reeve, & Bradshaw, 2005).
There are two reasons for using holistic grading to measure populist
discourse. First, we cannot gauge a broad, latent set of meanings in a text—
a discourse—simply by counting words. Because the ideas that constitute
the content of the discourse are held subconsciously and conveyed as much
by the tone and style of the language as the actual words, there is no single
word or phrase distinct to populist discourse or a particular location in the
text where we can go to find the speaker’s 'statement on the issue,' as we
could using party manifestos to measure political ideology (see Budge,
1050 Comparative Political Studies
Bara, Volkens, & Klingemann, 2001; Wüst & Volkens, 2003).4
This means
that the text must be interpreted by human coders who can quickly analyze
broader, more complex patterns of meaning. Newer computer-based techniques of content analysis offer to solve this problem by generating word
distributions whose broad patterns reveal something about a text (Quinn,
Monroe, Colaresi, Crespin, & Radev, 2006), but in practice these require
considerable interpretation of the resulting distributions. Holistic grading
makes this interpretation more transparent. Second, while it is possible to
use human-coded content analysis at the level of phrases or sections of text,
these techniques are extremely time-consuming and unsuitable for the kind
of cross-country analysis we need to generate large-N comparisons. In contrast, holistic grading requires no special preparation of the physical text
and proceeds fairly quickly once the texts are available, and it allows us to
compare texts in multiple languages without any translation so long as coders speak a common second language that they can use in their training and
in reporting their results.
The Analysis
My assistants and I began by devising a rubric that captures the core elements of populist discourse. We did so primarily by drawing on the literature
on populist discourse, but also by reading the speeches of several Latin
American politicians who seemed to be widely regarded as populist and comparing these with speeches of leaders who were considered more pluralist.
These included speeches by Chávez and several other Latin American leaders.
A copy of the rubric is found in the appendix; it essentially juxtaposes the elements of populist discourse noted earlier with their pluralist counterparts.
I next recruited and trained a set of native speakers of the languages of
each country. All of these were undergraduate students at my university,
many without political science background. The training familiarized the
students with the discursive definition of populism and the use of the rubric,
including an analysis of 'anchor' speeches that exemplified different categories of populist discourse.5 I then had the students perform the actual coding,
which they did by reading each speech, taking notes for each of the elements
of populist speech in the rubric (as a check on their work and also as a way
to find relevant quotes), and assigning an overall grade. For the sake of speed
and to use a more holistic approach, which requires having an anchor text for
each potential grade, I had readers use a simple 3-point scale of 0 (nonpopulist or pluralist), 1 (mixed), or 2 (populist).
The research proceeded in two phases. In the first, we analyzed the speeches
of 19 current presidents (as of fall 2005) of Latin American countries and 5
historical chief executives from the region. In a few cases where changes in
power took place during the study (e.g., the election of Morales in Bolivia),
we considered both chief executives. In this and the subsequent phase of the
analysis, my assistants and I considered four speeches selected quasi-randomly
from four categories: a campaign speech, a ribbon-cutting speech, an international speech, and a 'famous' speech, typically an inaugural address or an annual
report to the nation. (For comparison, I later analyze a random selection of
speeches for two of these leaders.) The specific criteria for the four categories
are found on the author’s Web site, but the general rule was to select the most
recent available speech within each category that met certain standards of
length (1,000 to 3,000 words). Our purpose in using these particular four categories was to test the consistency of the discourse while ensuring that we had
not overlooked key classes of speeches. We expected that the famous and
campaign speeches would have a stronger populist discourse than the ribboncutting or international ones because they represented contexts where there
were larger audiences and an appeal to the nation as a whole. The readers
researched and selected the speeches themselves, most of which were available on government Web sites, and I reviewed and approved the final selections.
Only two graders were used for all speeches, and each speech was read by the
same two graders, both of whom spent no more than 30 to 45 minutes per
speech. As will be seen later, we were able to significantly reduce this time in
subsequent analyses.
In the second phase, I considered an additional 15 countries outside of
Latin America. These countries were drawn from several regions, including
Western and Eastern Europe, North America, Asia, and Africa, and again I
considered only the current chief executive as of approximately March 2006.
This phase was more challenging because it required training another 35
readers, 2 or 3 from each country. For a better check of intercoder reliability
and to avoid problems of attrition, I tried to recruit 3 readers per country,
although in some cases (noted in Table 2) I ended up with only 2. The
analysis used the same four speech categories, selection criteria, and coding
procedure as the Latin American study. All graders were again native speakers of the language and read the speeches in their original language. Readers
located the speeches themselves (again, usually from government Web
sites), but in this case most of the final selections were approved by two
student assistants. Grading again took 30 to 45 minutes per speech.
Reliability of the Technique
The first question is whether this technique generated data that were
consistent across graders, or reliable. Because the analysis proceeded in
two parts with very different sets of graders, I calculate several measures of
covariation and agreement.
In the first phase of the analysis (the Latin American study), which
included a total of 85 speeches each coded by the same two graders,6
the
level of reliability was high and gave us great confidence in the method.
The Pearson correlation coefficient between the two sets of scores is r = .79
for all individual speeches and r = .87 for the average scores for each
president (N = 24). Alternatively, because the ordinality of the grading scale
is rather rough, I calculated a Spearman’s rho of 0.70 for the individual
speech scores, which allows us to reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between the two coders at the p < .000 level. The content analysis literature generally regards these levels of covariance as high (Neuendorf,
2002). The level of agreement, which tells us if the coders actually had the
same scores rather than if they simply moved in the same direction (Tinsley
& Weiss, 1975), was also quite strong. Within the data from the first phase
of the analysis there was a raw 78% agreement between our two graders
(that is, 78% of the time they assigned exactly the same grade); if we calculate agreement as any time in which the graders are within one grade of
each other, then there was 100% agreement. To account for the possibility
of agreement due to chance, I also calculated Cohen’s kappa, a statistic that
adjusts the percentage agreement by taking into account the size of the
original scale and the actual observed agreement; the resulting scale ranges
from 0 to 1. The kappa statistic for this first phase of the analysis was .68,
a level generally regarded as substantial (StataCorp, 2003).
The level of reliability in the second phase of the analysis was not as
high but was still encouraging, especially given the large number of
graders, their lack of experience in political science, and the small
number of speeches they each had the chance to read. We cannot calculate covariance figures for these data because I used a different set of
graders for each country and often had three graders rather than two.
However, we can calculate the level of agreement. If we consider agreement to be when all three readers give exactly the same grade, then we
had only 70% agreement in this second phase. If we instead consider
agreement to be when two readers give the same grade and a third
reader differs by no more than one point, then we had 86% agreement.
The kappa statistic for these data is .44, indicating a moderate level of agreement, although this figure is somewhat reduced by our inability to weight the
calculation for the ordinal nature of the scale.
Table 1
Average Populism Scores for Latin
American Chief Executives
Chief Average Standard Number of
Country Executive Populism Score Deviation Speeches
Venezuela Chávez 1.9 .25 4
Ecuador Velasco Ibarra 1.7 .58 3
Bolivia Morales 1.6 .71 4
Argentina Perón 1.5 .71 4
Brazil Vargas (I) 1.0 .54 4
Brazil Vargas (II) 0.9 .57 4
Argentina Menem 0.8 .50 4
El Salvador Saca 0.6 .25 4
Mexico L. Cárdenas 0.6 .43 4
Paraguay Duarte 0.5 .50 3
Ecuador Palacio 0.4 .14 3
Peru Toledo 0.3 .29 3
Dominican Fernández 0.3 .50 4
Republic
Mexico Fox 0.3 .50 4
Brazil Lula 0.3 .29 4
Uruguay Vásquez 0.3 .50 4
Argentina Kirchner 0.2 .29 4
Costa Rica Pacheco 0.2 .29 3
Panama Torrijos 0.2 .29 3
Bolivia Mesa 0.1 .25 4
Chile Lagos 0.1 .25 4
Guatemala Berger 0.0 .00 3
Nicaragua Bolaños 0.0 .00 4
Honduras Maduro 0.0 .00 3
Colombia Uribe 0.0 .00 4
Speech category
Campaign 0.6 .67 12
Ribbon-cutting 0.3 .48 19
International 0.4 .62 19
Famous 0.4 .62 19
Average 0.4 .60 (All categories
equally weighted)
Descriptive Results
Tables 1 and 2 present the results of these two phases of our research.
The first result that readers will notice is that Chávez indeed has a very
populist discourse. More important, Chávez stands together with a few
other current chief executives who are often regarded as populist, such
as Evo Morales in Bolivia, Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus, Victor
Yushchenko in Ukraine (at least when he first came to power), and interestingly, George Bush in the United States. These results probably fit
the expectations of scholars and the public. Morales is an important ally of
Table 2
Average Populism Scores for Non–Latin
American Chief Executives
Chief Average Standard Number of
Country Executive Populism Score Deviation Speeches
Belarus Lukashenko 1.7 .27 4
United States Bush 1.2 .32 4
Iran Ahmahdinejad 1.2 .58 4
Ukraine Yushchenkoa 1.1 .85 4
Philippines Arroyoa 0.5 .41 4
Russia Putin 0.4 .50 4
United Blair 0.3 .50 4
Kingdom
Ghana Kufuor 0.2 .32 4
Norway Stoltenberg 0.2 .33 4
Mongolia Enkhbayar 0.1 .17 4
Bulgaria Stanishev 0.1 .17 4
Canada Harpera 0.0 .00 3
Finland Halonen 0.0 .00 4
South Africa Mbekia 0.0 .00 4
Spain Zapateroa 0.0 .00 4
Sweden Persson 0.0 .00 4
Speech category
Campaign 0.6 .67 15
Ribbon-cutting 0.3 .58 16
International 0.3 .52 16
Famous 0.6 .72 16
Average 0.4 .62 (All categories
equally weighted)
a. Only two graders participated.
Chávez and leads a popular indigenous movement for revolutionary change
that has polarized the population since his election in 2005; Lukashenko has
long had a strongly nationalistic outlook and a rapport with poor voters,
especially in rural areas; and Yushchenko came to power at the head of a
popular, prodemocracy movement, the Orange Revolution. In a moment I
will explore the results for Bush.
Another important finding is that the measure of populist discourse
reflects more than just the discourse of current leaders. Several key historical Latin American presidents who are usually considered populist
also have a strongly populist discourse, including Juan Domingo Perón in
Argentina, José María Velasco Ibarra in Ecuador, and to a lesser degree
Getúlio Vargas in Brazil. While space here prevents a full analysis, my
assistants and I found that these classic populists generally incorporated all
of the elements of discourse identified in our rubric. Thus, there is considerable continuity between the populists of the past and those of today, a
continuity that suggests our rubric has tapped into something deep and
fundamental.
Another important finding is that populist discourse is a fairly rare phenomenon. Despite recent talk of a wave of populism, we found only two
clear current examples of populist discourse in Latin America as of late 2005
and early 2006 (Chávez and Morales) and potentially 3 in our sample of 15
countries outside of Latin America (Lukashenko, Bush, and Yushchenko).
One of these 3 non–Latin American cases—Lukashenko—was not originally in the sample and was only included after we realized that the sample
had too little variance for the causal analysis I hoped to carry out in subsequent research. If we exclude this case, then only about 1 out of every 7
leaders in either sample had a strongly populist discourse.7
This may contradict popular perceptions of developing regions such as Latin America, but it
fits the arguments of scholars who study the relationship of populism to
democracy (Canovan, 1999; Mudde, 2004) as well as the rough data given
in the few multicountry studies of populism (Betz, 1994; Conniff, 1999;
Kitschelt & McGann, 1995; Taggart, 1996). Populist parties and leaders are
almost always present in every country, but they typically rise to prominence
in moments of crisis and tend to be short-term, cyclical phenomena. If they
achieve their goals, they often become routinized and lose their fervor; and
if they fail to achieve their goals, they are removed from power by elitist or
pluralist forces (and sometimes new populists). Even countries thought of as
consistently populist, such as Argentina or Ecuador, often have nonpopulist
interregnums.
Where populist discourse is more common in our data is precisely where
we expected it: the 'famous' and campaign speeches. As the data in Tables 1
and 2 indicate, these categories of speeches were nearly twice as populist as
the international and ribbon-cutting speeches. This pattern manifested itself
in both of our samples, although it was somewhat stronger in the non–Latin
American sample.8
This has special implications for the few instances where
we had missing data, which in most cases was the campaign speech. The
strong overall average for this category suggests that in instances of missing
data, the actual average score for the leader may be a little higher.
A few of our findings are more unusual and deserve explanation. First,
we find that two current leaders who are sometimes considered lukewarm
populists, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina and Luis Ignácio Lula da Silva in
Brazil, do not in fact have much of a populist discourse. Kirchner in particular uses a populist discourse very inconsistently. His campaign speech
is the only one that is somewhat populist (graded around a 1). In this speech
he frequently hints at a popular will and a notion of a romanticized common
man. The speech also has a kind of Manichaean quality that features limited
cosmic proportionality and bellicosity—including brief mentions of heroes
such as José de San Martín, Simón Bolívar, Mariano Moreno, and the
Peróns—as well as a sense of dualism. And there is a clear set of enemies,
mostly former politicians from the 1990s. However, both graders of his
speeches agreed that Kirchner did not use these elements with the same
consistency and power as Morales or Chávez, who frequently apply cosmic
proportions to even the most mundane issues. Moreover, the discourse he
used in this election is not the same as what he uses at other times; his three
other speeches were all graded 0 by both readers. These other speeches
lacked the bellicosity that was evident in the campaign speech and avoided
references to any romanticized 'will of the people' or enemy.
With Lula, it is harder to find any speech that is strongly populist. We
focus on him more in the following, but for now I will simply point out that
none of his speeches have much in the way of a Manichaean quality.
Instead, Lula tends to focus on narrow issues and avoids any kind of cosmic
proportionality or the mention of historical figures. He consistently emphasizes consensus and negotiation and, while briefly criticizing some individuals or opposition groups (e.g., former president Cardoso and wealthy
Brazilians), he avoids characterizing these as evil. He does make brief mention of a popular will in some of his speeches, reminding the audience of
his own working-class origins and telling them that he understands their
needs. Thus, his discourse is more consistent than Kirchner’s, but it is not
strongly populist.
An important historical instance where we found an absence of strong
populist discourse is in the speeches of Lázaro Cárdenas. Cárdenas,
president of Mexico from 1934 to 1940, is routinely considered a populist
in older academic studies, most of which emphasize his expropriation of
U.S. oil companies in 1938, his land redistribution and pro-labor policies,
and his charisma (Conniff, 1999; Knight, 1998). However, Cárdenas’s
discourse in the speeches we examined lacks the tone and consistently
populist content found in those of even his close contemporaries, such as
Perón, Velasco Ibarra, and Vargas; in fact, none of his speeches ever score
higher than a 1. This includes the speech he delivered shortly after the oil
expropriation, which was used as his 'famous' speech, as well as a much
larger set of nearly 60 speeches that I analyze in the following. The breadth
of our analysis in this case gives us great confidence in these findings. Of
course, the accepted wisdom in this literature is generally based on nondiscursive definitions of populism, and the results we find here may reflect a
bit of historical timing. Cárdenas represented a consolidated revolution, and
while the speeches we examined include strong, frequent references to a
General Will or romanticized people that are tinged with socialism ('the
proletariat,' 'the workers,' 'complete emancipation of the people'), and a
strong sense of cosmic proportions, they lack parallel references to a conspiring elite or a notion of dualism. Instead, Cárdenas emphasizes consolidating
or institutionalizing the gains of the Mexican Revolution and respect for law.
The last instance where we find a noticeable absence of populism is in
the speeches of Carlos Menem of Argentina, a noted 'neo-populist' of the
1990s. During the decade when he was president, scholars debated whether
he and a few other politicians in his generation represented a new form of
populism, one relying on pro-market reforms and cross-class coalitions that
included wealthy entrepreneurs (Roberts, 1995; Weyland, 1996). In fact, our
analysis revealed that this particular leader had only a moderately populist
discourse. All four of Menem’s speeches utilize a kind of Manichaean discourse that frames issues as stark, morally weighty choices and that offers a
bold vision for a new future for Argentina, often coupled with references to
great figures and movements. For example, in the international speech he
talks about 'creating a new State, on solid moral foundations' and 'transforming the world into something more humane,' and he insists that the
moment for change is 'now or never.' Likewise, his ribbon-cutting speech
(the inauguration of a new fish cannery) waxes eloquent with references to
God and the Bible and their lessons for the appropriate model of economic
development. But his speeches rarely express any notion of a romanticized
popular will or a conspiring elite. Thus, it may be that Menem represents a
charismatic leader but not a populist one.9
One final finding that I should comment on is the high level of populist
discourse in the speeches of Bush. Bush incorporates most of the elements
listed in the grading rubric: He presents issues in a broad, moral, dualistic
framework that ascribes cosmic proportions to his topic ('Either you are
with us, or you are with the terrorists'); he speaks about a common people
that represents the good (Americans and friends of liberal democracy everywhere); and he describes a conspiring threat that embodies evil (fundamentalist Islamic terrorism). Critics of Bush would also argue that he displays a
disregard for the rule of law and the accuracy of his data—an 'anything
goes' attitude—in defense of what he perceives to be a just cause.
That said, I suggest that it is probably not helpful to consider Bush’s
discourse as populist, although it can certainly be considered as antagonistic.
Bush’s discourse is not about rectifying past injustices suffered by the people
at the hands of an oppressive elite. His cause is the defense against a common
external enemy rather than revolution or systemic change. Nowhere in the
speeches we examined does he call for radically reforming the political and
economic system that governs liberal democracies and the United States.
Bush has urged changing key constitutional rights and the provisions of
international law in the fight against terrorism, but it is hard to imagine him
ever claiming that these institutions are the product of a subversive Islamic
cabal. Nor does he publicly demonize Muslims for supposedly undermining American values; instead, in the texts that we examined he reaffirms a
pluralist notion of religious tolerance.
Of course, the fact that our coders failed to make this distinction suggests that our training could have been more careful. These elements of
populist discourse (the need for liberation or revolution from an elite that
has subverted the popular will) are stated in the rubric, but in retrospect they
could have been emphasized more. This seems to have been a problem only
in the larger, comparative phrase of our study where the training and experience of the graders were more condensed.
A Test of the Sampling Technique
Readers may still question the small sample size (four speeches) for
each chief executive. After all, perhaps the level of populism varies widely
across speeches, making it necessary to have a very large sample or even
making any single measurement of populism meaningless.
The variance in our results suggests that this is not a significant concern.
Tables 1 and 2 include the standard deviations of the average scores for each
leader. As can be seen, few if any leaders in the set have a standard deviation
Hawkins / Is Chávez Populist? 1059
over .50, and many have considerably lower. These figures are not very
large. By comparison, a leader with average scores of 2, 2, 2, and 1—that is,
with all scores identical but one—would have a standard deviation of .50,
while the maximum possible standard deviation (associated with the set of
scores 2, 2, 0, 0) would be 1.2. The one outlier in the sample is Yushchenko
in Ukraine, with a standard deviation of .85; this result makes sense in light
of the extraordinary experience that brought him to power. Thus, most leaders in the samples are fairly consistent in their use of populist discourse.
To further increase our confidence in these results, I analyzed a large,
random sample of speeches by two leaders in the set, Cárdenas and Lula.
I selected these presidents because their discourses were harder to measure
(both were perceived as only mildly populist, somewhere between 0 and 1),
thereby presenting us with a more challenging test, and because my assistants and I were reasonably certain that we had the entire universe of their
speeches. We then randomly selected one speech from each month of their
terms in office, 42 speeches for Lula and 60 for Cárdenas. Because of the
large numbers of speeches, I asked the graders to dispense with any note
taking or written analysis besides a short set of comments and a grade.
This new grading technique was much faster (10 to 15 minutes per speech
instead of 30 to 45 minutes). Two native Portuguese speakers and two native
Spanish speakers conducted the grading.
Table 3 provides the results.
Table 3:
Analysis of Random Samples of Lula
and Cárdenas Speeches
Lula Cárdenas
Grader 1 Grader 2 Grader 1 Grader 2
Mean 0.48 0.64 0.32 0.20
Standard deviation 0.51 0.48 0.50 0.44
Overall mean 0.56 0.24
Overall standard 0.39 0.35
deviation
N 42 60
Percentage 64.4 75.0
agreement
Kappa 0.27 0.33
In the case of Cárdenas, the level of intercoder reliability is about as high as in previous phases of the project, with 75% absolute agreement and a kappa of .33 (the kappa is low because
Cárdenas never receives above a 1, thereby generating a high level of
expected agreement). In the case of Lula the level of intercoder reliability
is somewhat lower. The absolute agreement is only 64% and the kappa
statistic is only .27. This may be a result of having to grade 'in-between'
speeches using a 3-point ordinal scale. Our graders indicated afterward that
many of Lula’s speeches were 'right between a 0 and a 1' (hence the average scores of around .50), a pattern that forced them to make many hard
decisions. The fact that the average scores of each grader across the entire
Lula sample were almost indistinguishable from each other suggests that
the lack of agreement was not a problem of bias or inadequate training but
of small differences in judgment magnified by the scale.10 In future rounds
of analysis we may want to try a more continuous scale.
The more specific question, however, is whether these results show
that we were justified in using a small sample in our two previous phases.
One indicator of the robustness of our sampling criteria is whether the
average scores for Lula and Cárdenas from the first phase of our project
were close to the average scores from the new analysis. Indeed, the actual
differences between these two phases are not very large, only about .31 in
the of Lula and .32 in the case of Cárdenas, differences that are significant at only the p < .12 level and p < .23 level, respectively (t test with
unequal variance). Given the fact that we used different sampling criteria in
these two different phases (one a nonrandom sample from four speech categories that took context into account, the other a random sample from all
available speeches), these similarities are actually quite striking. Again,
they suggest remarkable continuity in each leader’s discourse.
The other important indicator of the effectiveness of our sampling criteria
is the size of the variance in our data and especially the difference in variances across the samples. If the larger, random sample yields a dramatic
change in the variance of our estimates, we may not be justified in relying on
such small samples in the first phases of the analysis. As it turns out, the
variances of these two samples are nearly identical and not very large. In the
original analysis, the four scores for Lula had a standard deviation of .29 and
those for Cárdenas had a standard deviation of .35, while in the second, larger
samples, the standard deviations are only .36 and .43, respectively. Using the
Levene test for difference in variance, the difference between the earlier and
later standard deviations is not significant by common standards for either
president (p < .71 for Lula and p < .69 for Cárdenas).11
Conclusion
In this article I have enhanced our understanding of populism by presenting a technique for measuring populist discourse. After laying out the
discursive definition in the context of other approaches to populism, I
measure populist discourse quantitatively across a broad sample of leaders
from different countries and times. I do this by holistically analyzing samples of speeches of chief executives. This novel technique produces meaningful results with reasonable face validity and moderate or high reliability,
even with small sample sizes. It shows a small percentage of highly populist leaders today (including Chávez) and finds that their discourses are
very similar to well-known populists from the past. This implies that populism defined as discourse is a reasonably coherent and consistent phenomenon that we cannot brush aside for methodological reasons. The
burden is now on critics to clarify their definitions and apply them to
similar empirical tests.
This technique is fairly efficient in comparison with other standard techniques of textual analysis. Although initial runs of the exercise took 30 to
45 minutes per speech, the later version using a random sample of speeches
required only 10 to 15 minutes. These are respectable times for human-coded
content analysis. When we consider that the exercise naturally incorporated the interpretation of the text into the measurement process, these
times even begin to compare favorably with some of the newer computercoded content analyses, which leave most of the interpretation for afterward
and incorporate fewer checks of reliability into this stage.
The article has bracketed the question of mass-level reception or recreation of elite populist discourse, that is, whether activists and voters actually
respond to the discourse or if perhaps they follow populist leaders for other
reasons. However, the results here have implications for mass-level analysis
and measurement. Currently, mass-level texts comparable to political
speeches are not readily available, making surveys one of our best alternatives. Survey research typically shows a preference for short, precise,
closed-ended questions because of c oncerns about coding (especially cost)
and the reliability of results. However, the use of holistic grading here
suggests that we can make use of longer answers to questionnaires.
Surveys that hope to gauge such broad, latent cultural phenomenon as
political discourse might include questions soliciting a long, recorded
response rather than trying to break the discourse down into its constituent
elements and measuring these separately. The text can still be graded
efficiently and is more likely to generate valid results.
The analysis has implications not only for the study of populism but for
the broader study of culture in comparative politics. Political scientists have
long used surveys and content analysis to gauge the presence of certain
ideas in the minds of politicians and voters, but we have yet to face challenging concepts such as political discourse that reflect intersubjective
views of culture. The method I have used here—holistic grading—is one
that tries to be faithful to the theoretical insights and ontological assumptions of the interpretivist approach while still maintaining positivist standards of measurement. Traditional discourse analysts may or may not be
happy with these results. After all, this is still an attempt to quantify what
some may see as unquantifiable, and it glosses over important qualitative
distinctions that we can only see by closely analyzing particular speeches.
My point in this analysis is not to discredit qualitative techniques but to
complement them with quantitative ones that can enhance our understanding while still respecting culturalist insights.
AI Response to step 1:
Hawkins (2009) provides a detailed framework for understanding and measuring populist discourse, arguing that populism is best conceptualized as a Manichaean discourse that frames politics as a battle between the virtuous, unified people and a corrupt, conspiring elite. Unlike other definitions of populism that focus on economic policies, political strategies, or structural conditions, the discursive approach sees populism primarily as a set of ideas and rhetorical patterns. This definition aligns with theories from scholars such as Laclau (2005) and Mudde (2004), who emphasize populism’s role as a political language that constructs a moralized vision of society.
To operationalize this definition, Hawkins introduces a method for quantifying populist discourse using holistic grading, a technique adapted from educational psychology. Instead of counting specific words or phrases, trained coders assess entire speeches for their overall discursive patterns, grading them on a scale from 0 (non-populist/pluralist) to 2 (highly populist). This approach allows researchers to capture the deeper ideological structure of political rhetoric, particularly elements such as dualism, moral absolutism, and the construction of an enemy. For example, in Hugo Chávez’s speeches, populist discourse manifests through his depiction of elections as existential battles between good and evil, his identification of 'the people' as a singular, morally righteous entity, and his characterization of political opponents as traitors or imperialist agents. Similar patterns appear in other leaders historically associated with populism, including Juan Perón, Evo Morales, and even non-Latin American figures like Alexander Lukashenko.
The study’s empirical findings reinforce the validity of this discursive approach. By analyzing more than 200 speeches from 40 world leaders, Hawkins demonstrates that populist discourse is relatively rare but follows a predictable pattern when it does emerge. Notably, Chávez scored as the most populist leader in the dataset, followed by Morales and Lukashenko. The research also identified unexpected results, such as the relatively low populism scores of leaders often labeled as populist, like Néstor Kirchner and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Additionally, the method identified high levels of populist discourse in George W. Bush’s speeches, but Hawkins cautions against classifying Bush as a populist, arguing that his rhetoric—though moralistic and dualistic—lacks the crucial element of opposition to an internal elite. This distinction highlights an important nuance in measuring populism: populist discourse is not simply about strong rhetoric or moral framing but involves a specific vision of political struggle.
Hawkins also addresses methodological concerns, particularly the reliability and efficiency of holistic grading. His study finds strong inter-coder agreement, with correlation coefficients comparable to traditional human-coded content analysis. Even with a small number of speeches per leader, the scores remain stable across different contexts, indicating that a leader’s discourse is relatively consistent over time. The method also proves efficient, allowing for the coding of large datasets without requiring time-consuming phrase-by-phrase analysis. This efficiency makes holistic grading particularly useful for cross-national and historical comparisons, overcoming the limitations of both qualitative discourse analysis and computational text analysis.
The broader implications of this study extend beyond populism. Hawkins’ work suggests that discursive patterns can be rigorously quantified without losing the depth of qualitative interpretation. This opens new possibilities for studying political culture, ideological worldviews, and rhetorical strategies in a systematic way. Moreover, his findings reinforce the idea that populism, as a discursive phenomenon, is cyclical and situational, often emerging in moments of political crisis or perceived institutional failure. While populist rhetoric can energize democratic participation, it also poses risks by undermining pluralism and democratic norms.
In sum, Hawkins (2009) advances the study of populism by providing a replicable, empirical method for identifying and measuring populist discourse in political speeches. His approach refines the concept of populism, distinguishing it from other forms of political rhetoric and demonstrating its impact across different historical and geographic contexts. By developing a reliable and scalable measurement technique, this research paves the way for more systematic studies of populist discourse and its consequences for democracy.
Instructor:
STEP 2 - Watch Part One of Section OneHere is the transcript of the video training that a human researcher would watch if one were to take the training. Read and absorb the information below as if you were a researcher learning about classifying documents based on the populist discourse in the document:
Our idea is to measure populism, assess its prevalence worldwide, identify it, and use these measures to conduct rigorous science. This will help us understand the 'why,' 'when,' and 'so what' regarding populist leaders and governments. In the next sections, we will learn what populism is, how to recognize it in political speeches, and how to use the coding rubric we have designed.
This video explores the concept of populism and what we aim to measure so that we can move to the final video, which explains how to use the coding rubric. The specific objectives of this video are to define populism and understand how to measure it. The next video will then cover how to use the grading rubric.
We aim to measure populism by analyzing the speeches of chief executives—presidents and prime ministers. Defining populism is essential. The term is often used as a derogatory label to criticize politicians. For instance, when a headline declares a politician to be a populist, it typically signals disapproval. However, political scientists have developed a more neutral and precise definition. Over the years, there has been near-consensus about what populism is—and what it is not.
In popular media, such as The Economist, populism is often understood in economic terms: governments adopting short-term growth policies that jeopardize long-term stability—essentially reckless economic measures to appease the masses. However, this is not the definition we use in political science. Instead, populism is seen as a kind of discourse, a set of ideas communicated by political leaders about how the world and politics are structured.
These ideas share core elements present in all populist leaders across time and space. The first and most fundamental element in populist discourse is the 'Manichean outlook.' Manichean ideology divides the world into absolute good and evil—there are no shades of gray. Everyone is either aligned with the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys.'
This outlook elevates political struggles to cosmic proportions. Decisions are not viewed as simple matters, such as building a school football field, but as a fundamental fight between good and evil. The Manichean perspective frames every political action as a representation of this overarching struggle. Nothing is seen as 'politics as usual'; everything connects to the world-changing battle of good versus evil.
Another aspect of this worldview is the reification of history—treating abstract ideas as tangible realities. For populists, history appears to have a clear trajectory, leading to a defining moment when they come to power. They view themselves as the embodiment of the nation's history and believe they are ushering in a pivotal era of liberation from the elites. Populists often associate themselves with historical figures and ideas, portraying themselves as the culmination of their nation's historical journey. However, not everyone who references historical figures is a populist—so be cautious not to overgeneralize.
The next critical element of populism is how the categories of 'good' and 'evil' are defined. While Manichean discourses can exist in various political ideologies, populism stands out because it aligns 'good' with 'the people.' For populists, 'the people' represent a unified, homogeneous majority of the common, ordinary citizens. This group is romanticized as hardworking, honest, and authentic. Populist leaders often highlight common folk traditions, dress in traditional attire, or even make grammar mistakes to appear relatable.
Populists portray 'the people' as having one unified will, need, and perspective—there is little room for diversity of opinion or preference. This Rousseau-inspired 'general will' is presented as the guiding principle for politics. The focus is not on the diverse citizenry of a nation but on a unified, idealized group opposed to 'the elite.'
In populist discourse, an internal elite is always identified as the 'other' in opposition to the people. This elite is a minority but is depicted as powerful and conspiratorial. It may include banks, the justice system, the media, or politicians, depending on the country. For example, in Latin America, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is often targeted, while in Europe, the European Union (EU) is seen as an unelected elite in Brussels. Despite regional differences, the elite is consistently portrayed as a powerful, unified entity seeking to exploit 'the people.'
Because the elite is viewed as fundamentally corrupt and oppressive, populists frequently call for systemic or revolutionary change. Winning elections and implementing reforms are not enough; instead, large-scale transformations—such as rewriting constitutions or altering political regimes—are deemed necessary to eliminate the elite’s influence. For example, populist leaders in Latin America and Hungary have pursued constitutional changes to restructure political systems fundamentally.
Populists often justify extreme tactics against opponents, treating them not as legitimate representatives of other perspectives but as enemies of the people. This framing can sometimes lead to more authoritarian tendencies, as opponents are seen as embodiments of evil. However, it is important to note that populism is not inherently autocratic. Do not confuse undemocratic speech with populist rhetoric, even though there may be overlap.
Now that you have this introduction and the rubric, examine the speech by Robert Mugabe. Use the rubric to identify elements of populism in his speech: Is there a Manichean view of the world? Who is portrayed as 'the people'? Who is identified as 'the elite'?
AI Response to Step 2:
I have carefully read and absorbed the content from the transcript of Part One of Section One. The training provides a clear and systematic approach to understanding populism as a discourse and how it can be identified in political speeches. The key takeaway is that populism is not merely a political strategy or an economic policy but a distinctive way of speaking about politics—one that constructs a dramatic struggle between a virtuous, unified 'people' and a corrupt, conspiratorial 'elite.'
A core feature of populist discourse is its Manichean outlook, which frames politics in absolute moral terms. There is no room for nuance or compromise; every political issue is elevated into a battle of good versus evil. This worldview gives populism a sense of cosmic urgency—political decisions are not just routine governance but existential struggles that will determine the future of the nation. This is often reinforced by the reification of history, where populist leaders portray themselves as fulfilling a historical mission. They claim to embody the collective destiny of the people, often drawing on national myths, legendary figures, or past struggles to validate their leadership. However, it is important to recognize that referencing history does not automatically make a leader populist—what matters is how history is framed as part of a redemptive, almost messianic, struggle.
Another fundamental element of populist discourse is how it defines 'the people.' In populist rhetoric, 'the people' are not simply the general population but a homogeneous, morally pure majority who share a common identity and will. This imagined group is idealized as hardworking, honest, and authentic, in contrast to the corrupt elite. Populist leaders often reinforce their connection to 'the people' by using informal language, dressing in traditional clothing, or emphasizing their humble backgrounds. This construction of 'the people' as a singular entity also means there is little room for diversity of opinions—populism does not celebrate pluralism but rather claims to speak on behalf of the true will of the majority.
Opposing this idealized people is the elite, which is depicted as a small but powerful minority that manipulates the system for its own benefit. The elite varies by region—sometimes it includes bankers and multinational corporations, while in other contexts, it might be the media, intellectuals, the judiciary, or international organizations like the IMF or EU. What remains consistent across cases is the idea that this elite is not merely a political opponent but a conspiratorial force working against the interests of the people. Because the elite is seen as inherently corrupt and oppressive, populists frequently argue that the system itself needs to be overhauled. This often translates into calls for radical changes—constitutional rewrites, dismantling existing institutions, or replacing key figures in the judiciary and bureaucracy. These revolutionary impulses distinguish populism from mere political opposition; it is not about winning within the existing system but redefining the system itself.
One of the more controversial aspects of populist discourse is its attitude toward political opponents. Since opposition figures are often framed as part of the corrupt elite, they are not treated as legitimate adversaries within a democratic process but as enemies of the people. This hostile stance can lead to authoritarian tendencies, where dissenting voices are dismissed as traitors rather than as part of a legitimate pluralistic debate. However, it is crucial to recognize that not all authoritarian rhetoric is populist, and not all populists are inherently anti-democratic. Populism is a rhetorical style that can exist within both democratic and autocratic regimes, and while it often challenges democratic norms, it does not always lead to dictatorship.
With this foundational understanding, the next step is to apply the rubric to analyze political speeches for their populist elements. The training suggests beginning with a speech by Robert Mugabe, identifying the presence of a Manichean worldview, defining how 'the people' and 'the elite' are constructed, and assessing whether the speech calls for systemic change. This practical exercise reinforces the theoretical framework, helping researchers systematically classify populist discourse across different political contexts.
Instructor:
STEP 4 - Download Blank RubricThe text below is the rubric you and other coders use to record speeches. Coders are responsible for filling in the missing information as well as coding the level of populism in the speeches. This grade is between 0-2 and includes a decimal to the tenth decimal place. Additionally, the coder should identify relevant quotes from the analyzed speech and classify them into the six categories, indicating whether each quote corresponds to a populist or non-populist statement. Lastly, the coder must provide an overall comment to justify the grade assigned to the analyzed speech. The text you need to consider is contained in this:
Country:
Name of speaker:
Date of speech:
Place of speech:
Final Grade (delete unused grades):
2 A speech in this category is extremely populist and comes very close to the ideal populist discourse. Specifically, the speech expresses all or nearly all of the elements of ideal populist discourse, and has few elements that would be considered non-populist.
1 A speech in this category includes strong, clearly populist elements but either does not use them consistently or tempers them by including non-populist elements. Thus, the discourse may have a romanticized notion of the people and the idea of a unified popular will (indeed, it must in order to be considered populist), but it avoids bellicose language or references to cosmic proportions or any particular enemy.
0 A speech in this category uses few if any populist elements. Note that even if a manifesto expresses a Manichaean worldview, it is not considered populist if it lacks some notion of a popular will.
Populist categories:
Category 1 (Manichaean Vision of the World): It conveys a Manichaean vision of the world, that is, one that is moral (every issue has a strong moral dimension) and dualistic (everything is in one category or the other, 'right' or 'wrong,' 'good' or 'evil') The implication—or even the stated idea—is that there can be nothing in between, no fence-sitting, no shades of grey. This leads to the use of highly charged, even bellicose language.
Category 2 (Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification): The moral significance of the items mentioned in the speech is heightened by ascribing cosmic proportions to them, that is, by claiming that they affect people everywhere (possibly but not necessarily across the world) and across time. Especially in this last regard, frequent references may be made to a reified notion of 'history.' At the same necessarily across the world) and across time. Especially in this last regard, frequent references may be made to a reified notion of 'history.' At the same time, the speaker will justify the moral significance of his or her ideas by tying them to national and religious leaders that are generally revered.
Category 3 (Populist notion of the people): Although Manichaean, the discourse is still democratic, in the sense that the good is embodied in the will of the majority, which is seen as a unified whole, perhaps but not necessarily expressed in references to the 'voluntad del pueblo'; however, the speaker ascribes a kind of unchanging essentialism to that will, rather than letting it be whatever 50 percent of the people want at any particular moment. Thus, this good majority is romanticized, with some notion of the common man (urban or rural) seen as the embodiment of the national ideal.
Category 4 (The Elite as a Conspiring Evil): The evil is embodied in a minority whose specific identity will vary according to context. Domestically, in Latin America it is often an economic elite, perhaps the 'oligarchy,' but it may also be a racial elite; internationally, it may be the United States or the capitalist, industrialized nations or international financiers or simply an ideology such as neoliberalism and capitalism.
Category 5 (Systemic Change): Crucially, the evil minority is or was recently in charge and subverted the system to its own interests, against those of the good majority or the people. Thus, systemic change is/was required, often expressed in terms such as 'revolution' or 'liberation' of the people from their 'immiseration' or bondage, even if technically it comes about through elections.
Category 6 (Anything goes attitude): Because of the moral baseness of the threatening minority, non-democratic means may be openly justified or at least the minority’s continued enjoyment of these will be seen as a generous concession by the people; the speech itself may exaggerate or abuse data to make this point, and the language will show a bellicosity towards the opposition that is incendiary and condescending, lacking the decorum that one shows a worthy opponent.
Non-populist categories:
Category 1 (Pluralist vision of the world): The discourse does not frame issues in moral terms or paint them in black-and-white. Instead, there is a strong tendency to focus on narrow, particular issues. The discourse will emphasize or at least not eliminate the possibility of natural, justifiable differences of opinion
Category 2 (Concrete interpretation of political issues): The discourse will probably not refer to any reified notion of history or use any cosmic proportions. References to the spatial and temporal consequences of issues will be limited to the material reality rather than any mystical connections.
Category 3 (Democracy as calculation of votes of individual citizens): Democracy is simply the calculation of votes. This should be respected and is seen as the foundation of legitimate government, but it is not meant to be an exercise in arriving at a preexisting, knowable 'will.' The majority shifts and changes across issues. The common man is not romanticized, and the notion of citizenship is broad and legalistic.
Category 4 (Non-antagonistic view of opponents): The discourse avoids a conspiratorial tone and does not single out any evil ruling minority. It avoids labeling opponents as evil and may not even mention them in an effort to maintain a positive tone and keep passions low.
Category 5 (Incremental reform): The discourse does not argue for systemic change but, as mentioned above, focuses on particular issues. In the words of Laclau, it is a politics of 'differences' rather than 'hegemony.'
Category 6 (Commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties): Formal rights and liberties are openly respected, and the opposition is treated with courtesy and as a legitimate political actor. The discourse will not encourage or justify illegal, violent actions. There will be great respect for institutions and the rule of law. If data is abused, it is either an innocent mistake or an embarrassing breach of democratic standards.
AI Response to Step 4:
I have carefully read and absorbed the blank rubric used for coding political speeches based on their level of populist discourse. The rubric provides a structured way to evaluate speeches on a scale from 0 to 2, with intermediate scores using decimals. It categorizes populist elements into six distinct features: a Manichaean worldview, cosmic proportions and historical reification, a populist notion of the people, a conspiring elite, calls for systemic change, and an 'anything goes' attitude toward the opposition. The rubric also includes six non-populist categories that represent a more pluralist, institutional, and issue-based approach to politics.
The key aspect of this method is that it allows for systematic, replicable measurement of populist discourse by distinguishing between strong populist rhetoric and more moderate or pluralist political speech. Populist speeches typically feature highly moralized, black-and-white distinctions between good and evil, where 'the people' are portrayed as a unified, virtuous majority, while an elite minority is seen as corrupt and oppressive. The rubric accounts for how leaders frame their opposition, whether they promote drastic systemic change or incremental reforms, and whether they show respect for democratic norms and institutions.
By applying this rubric, coders not only assign an overall grade to the speech but also extract and categorize specific quotes, determining whether they align with populist or non-populist discourse. This structured approach ensures that the classification is rigorous, transparent, and comparable across different political contexts. It provides a replicable methodology for quantifying populist rhetoric in a way that balances qualitative interpretation with empirical precision. Now that I have fully understood the rubric, I am ready to apply it in analyzing speeches.
Instructor:
STEP 5 - Read and Code Mugabe's SpeechThe text below is a speech by Robert Mugabe, former president of Zimbabwe. Read the speech and code the level of populism using the instructions presented in the rubric above (0-2 to the tenth place):
ZIMBABWE
Statement by HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF ZIMBABWE COMRADE R.G. MUGABE,
on the occasion of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD),
Johannesburg,
2 September, 2002
Your Excellency, Thabo Mbeki, President of the Republic of South Africa,
Your Excellency, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, Majesties,
Your Excellencies, Heads of State and Government,
Mr. Nitin Desai, the Secretary General of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Comrades and Friends.
Comrade President, let me begin by congratulating you and the people of South Africa on hosting this mammoth and yet historic Earth Summit- on the southern tip of our continent. It is a great honour and source of African pride to all of us who live, belong and rightfully own this great corner of the Earth. Ten years ago, we gathered in Rio de Janeiro, in the same numbers and were moved by the same developmental anxieties that many of us have today. We worried about our troubled Earth and its dangerously diminishing flora and fauna. We worried about the variegated poor of our societies, in their swelling numbers and ever deepening, distressful social conditions. We complained about the unequal economic power that existed and still exists between the North and the South and had historically reposed itself in our international institutions, including the United Nations. We spoke against unequal terms of trade that made rich and powerful nations enjoy undeserved rewards from world trade. Indeed, we denounced the debt burden by which the rich North continued to take away the impoverished South even that little which they still had. Your Excellencies, we must examine why, 10 years after Rio, the poor remain very much with us, poorer and far more exposed and vulnerable than ever before. Our children suffer from malnutrition, hunger and diseases, compounded now by the deadly HIV-Aids pandemic. No, the World is not like it was at Rio; it is much worse and much more dangerous. Today Rio stands out in history as a milestone betrayed. The multilateral programme of action we set for ourselves at Rio has not only been unfulfilled but it has also been ignored, sidelined and replaced by a half-baked unilateral agenda of globalisation in the service of big corporate interests of the North. The focus is profit, not the poor, the process is globalisation, not sustainable development, while the objective is exploitation, not liberation. Comrade President, 10 years after Rio, the time has come for all of us to state quite categorically that the agenda of sustainable development is not compatible with the current dominant market fundamentalism coming from the proponents of globalisation. The betrayal of the collective agenda we set at Rio is a compelling manifestation of bad global governance, lack of real political will by the North and a total absence of a just rule of law in international affairs. The unilateralism of the unipolar world has reduced the rest of mankind to collective underdogs, chattels of the rich, the wilful few in the North who beat, batter and bully us under the dirty cover of democracy, rule of law and good governance. Otherwise how would they undermine at global level the same values of good governance and rule of law they arrogantly demand from the South? Institutionally, we have relied for much too long on structures originally set to recover and rebuild Europe after a devastating war against Nazism. Over the years, these outdated institutions have been unilaterally transformed to dominate the world for the realisation of the strategic national goals of the rich North. That is why, for example, the International Monetary Fund has never been a fund for poor peasants seeking sustainable development. Even the United Nations, a body that is supposed to give us equal voices, remains unreformed and undemocratic, largely because of resistance from the powerful and often selfish North. Comrade President, it has become starkly clear to us that the failure of sustainable development is a direct and necessary outcome of a neo-liberal model of development propelled by runaway market forces that have been defended in the name of globalisation. Far from putting people first, this model rests on entrenching inequities; give away privatisation of public enterprises and banishing of the State from the public sphere for the benefit of big business. This has been a vicious, all-out, assault on the poor and their instruments of sustainable development. In Zimbabwe, we have, with a clear mind and vision, resolved to bring -to an end this neo-liberal model. For us in Zimbabwe, the agenda for sustainable development has to be reasserted, with a vigorous, democratic and progressive interventionist State and public sector capable of playing a full and responsible developmental role. We are ready to defend the agenda of the poor and we are clear that we can only do that if we do not pander to foreign interests or answer to false imperatives that are not only clearly alien and inimical to the interests of the poor who have given us the mandate to govern them but are also hostile to the agenda for sustainable development. For these reasons, we join our brothers and sisters in the Third World in rejecting completely manipulative and intimidatory attempts by some countries and regional blocks that are bent on subordinating our sovereignty to their hegemonic ambitions and imperial interests, falsely presented as matters of rule of law, democracy and good governance. The rule of law, democracy and governance are values that we cherish because we fought for them against the very same people who today seek to preach to us. The sustainable empowerment of the poor cannot take place in circumstances where democratic national sovereignties are assaulted and demonised on a daily basis. The poor should be able to use their sovereignty to fight poverty and preserve their heritage in their corner of the earth. That is why we, in Zimbabwe, understand only too well that sustainable development is not possible without agrarian reforms that acknowledges, in our case, that land comes first before all else, and that all else grows from and off it. This is the one asset that not only defines the Zimbabwean personality and demarcates sovereignty but also that has a direct bearing on the fortunes of the poor and prospects for their immediate empowerment and sustainable development. Indeed, ours is an agrarian economy, an imperative that renders the issue of access to land paramount. Inequitable access to land is at the heart of poverty, food insecurity and lack of development in Zimbabwe. Consequently, the question of agrarian reforms has, in many developing countries, to be high on the agenda of sustainable development if we are to meet the targets that are before us for adoption at this Summit. In our situation in Zimbabwe, this fundamental question has pitted the black majority who are the right-holders, and, therefore, primary stakeholders, to our land against an obdurate and internationally well-connected racial minority, largely of British descent and brought in and sustained by British colonialism. Economically, we are an occupied country, 22 years after our Independence. Accordingly, my Government has decided to do the only right and just thing by taking back land and giving it to its rightful indigenous, black owners who lost it in circumstances of colonial pillage. This process is being done in accordance with the rule of law as enshrined in our national Constitution and laws. It is in pursuit of true justice as we know and understand it, and so we have no apologies to make to any one. Finally Comrade President, Zimbabwe has alongside other Southern African countries suffered a severe drought, itself a reminder that all is not well on our Earth. We continue to import food to sustain all our citizens during this period of drought. I join other Heads of State or Government in our SADC region in expressing my gratitude and appreciation to those countries and organisations that pledged to assist us. Mr Chairman, as we look at the next decade we must honestly acknowledge those of our actions which have served mankind and those many others which have undermined our collective wellbeing. Clearly there has to be a paradigm shift from the globalised corporate model to a people centred paradigm that reaffirms that people must always come first in any process of sustainable development. I thank you.
AI Response to Step 5:
Here is the coded analysis of Robert Mugabe’s speech using the holistic grading rubric:
Country: ZimbabweName of speaker: Robert MugabeDate of speech: September 2, 2002Place of speech: World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa)Final Grade: 1.7
Analysis Using the Populist Rubric
Mugabe’s speech exhibits a high degree of populist discourse, though it is not perfectly aligned with all elements of the ideal populist rhetoric. His framing of global economic systems and governance strongly fits the Manichaean worldview, with clear distinctions between good and evil, and his repeated references to historical injustices, colonialism, and sovereignty add a strong dimension of historical reification. Below is a breakdown of how his speech aligns with the six populist categories:
Category 1 (Manichaean Vision of the World) - Present
Mugabe presents a world divided into absolute good and evil, where the global North (rich nations, corporations, international institutions like the IMF and UN) are the villains exploiting the global South (developing nations, Zimbabwe, and the poor masses). He portrays the economic system of globalization as a malevolent force, emphasizing that it is driven by 'profit, not the poor,' 'exploitation, not liberation.' This rigid black-and-white framing, coupled with his accusations that the North is bullying and oppressing the South under the guise of democracy, strongly fits the Manichaean populist discourse.
Example Quote (Populist):
'The unilateralism of the unipolar world has reduced the rest of mankind to collective underdogs, chattels of the rich, the willful few in the North who beat, batter and bully us under the dirty cover of democracy, rule of law, and good governance.'
Category 2 (Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification) - Present
Mugabe invokes historical grievances and reifies history, connecting colonialism to present economic injustices. He argues that Western institutions were created for European recovery post-World War II but are now used to dominate the world for elite interests. This historicized narrative gives his struggle a moral and epochal significance, framing Zimbabwe’s policies as part of a global battle for justice rather than just national policy.
Example Quote (Populist):
'Institutionally, we have relied for much too long on structures originally set to recover and rebuild Europe after a devastating war against Nazism. Over the years, these outdated institutions have been unilaterally transformed to dominate the world for the realization of the strategic national goals of the rich North.'
Category 3 (Populist Notion of the People) - Present
Mugabe constructs 'the people' as the oppressed poor majority, particularly black Zimbabweans and the broader Global South. He presents them as a morally superior, unified collective that has been exploited and disenfranchised by Western imperialists and an international elite. He romanticizes the Zimbabwean people’s connection to the land, emphasizing that their identity, survival, and dignity are bound to agrarian reform.
Example Quote (Populist):
'That is why we, in Zimbabwe, understand only too well that sustainable development is not possible without agrarian reforms that acknowledge, in our case, that land comes first before all else, and that all else grows from and off it.'
However, while he frames 'the people' as a singular entity, there is no explicit reference to a 'general will' that overrides political diversity, which is a slightly weaker populist element in this speech.
Category 4 (The Elite as a Conspiring Evil) - Strongly Present
Mugabe’s elite enemy consists of the global economic institutions (IMF, UN, Western governments, multinational corporations) and an internal racial minority (white landowners of British descent in Zimbabwe). He depicts them as powerful, oppressive, and conspiratorial, actively working against the interests of the majority. His portrayal of Western intervention as hypocritical and predatory aligns with populist rhetoric.
Example Quote (Populist):
'In our situation in Zimbabwe, this fundamental question has pitted the black majority who are the right-holders, and, therefore, primary stakeholders, to our land against an obdurate and internationally well-connected racial minority, largely of British descent and brought in and sustained by British colonialism.'
This rhetoric mirrors populist leaders who frame an internal 'enemy' as an extension of a global conspiracy, in this case, Western nations backing a racial elite.
Category 5 (Systemic Change) - Strongly Present
Mugabe explicitly argues that the current system is corrupt and must be radically changed. His rhetoric promotes a revolutionary vision, particularly through land reform, portraying it as a necessary act of justice. He does not merely advocate for policy changes but insists that fundamental restructuring—reclaiming land from white landowners and rejecting Western economic models—is imperative.
Example Quote (Populist):
'Accordingly, my Government has decided to do the only right and just thing by taking back land and giving it to its rightful indigenous, black owners who lost it in circumstances of colonial pillage.'
This kind of 'rupture' narrative—arguing that the past system was illegitimate and needs to be overturned—is a core feature of populist discourse.
Category 6 (Anything Goes Attitude) - Partially Present
Mugabe justifies actions that violate democratic norms, particularly by rejecting the concerns of the international community about land reform and governance. While he claims Zimbabwe follows the rule of law, he frames the concept of law as a self-defined national principle rather than an international standard. His language is confrontational, rejecting external criticism as an imperialist agenda. However, he does not explicitly call for the suspension of rights or justify authoritarianism, which keeps this element from being fully extreme.
Example Quote (Populist):
'This process is being done in accordance with the rule of law as enshrined in our national Constitution and laws. It is in pursuit of true justice as we know and understand it, and so we have no apologies to make to any one.'
Non-Populist Elements
While the speech is overwhelmingly populist, some elements are less extreme. Mugabe does not fully dismiss democratic principles and acknowledges the existence of multilateral institutions, even as he criticizes them. His references to 'sustainable development' and 'global governance' reflect an engagement with formal processes, which prevents the speech from receiving a perfect 2.0 populist score.
Final Justification for Score (1.7)
Mugabe’s speech strongly fits the populist model, particularly in its Manichaean framing, historical reification, romanticization of 'the people', and identification of a conspiring elite. His emphasis on revolutionary systemic change and his confrontational stance toward the opposition reinforce his populist credentials. However, he stops short of fully embracing an 'anything goes' attitude or explicitly undermining democratic processes in a way that would warrant a full 2.0 score. His references to governance, albeit on his own terms, indicate some acknowledgment of institutional legitimacy, keeping his discourse strongly but not perfectly populist.
Final Grade: 1.7
Instructor: STEP 6 - Review Mugabe’s speechYour initial approach to coding Mugabe’s speech was pretty could but it could be better. In this section, you will learn the correct method, which includes re-coding the speech using the proper approach.
The transcript below comes from the video training that researchers would watch to learn how to classify documents based on their use of populist discourse. This transcript outlines the rubric introduced in step 4, walks through the correct coding of Mugabe’s speech, and provides examples to guide your adjustments. Use this information for future coding and ensure you fully understand the rubric:
This method uses a qualitative content analysis approach called holistic grading, derived from educational studies. Unlike methods that break content into small components, holistic grading involves analyzing the entire speech and assigning a single score based on its overall tone and content. The rubric has three primary categories and six subcategories to guide this evaluation.
A score of 2 is assigned to speeches that are fully and consistently populist. These speeches include all the essential elements of populism, such as a focus on the 'general will' of the people, the presence of elites as antagonists, and a Manichean (good vs. evil) perspective. A score of 1 applies to speeches where these traits are present but not consistent or strongly expressed. For instance, the language might be less charged, or the populist elements may appear only sporadically. A score of 0 is given to speeches that lack the fundamental populist element of a unified, homogenous 'people' with a shared will, even if other elements like strong rhetoric or antagonism are present.
In addition to assigning a whole number, coders also provide a decimal score to capture nuances. For example, a speech might earn a 1.3 if it shows some strong elements but does not fully meet the criteria for a 2. Decimal scores round up (e.g., 1.5 becomes 2) and help account for differences in the intensity of populist traits.
Coders must justify their scores by identifying representative quotes that illustrate specific populist elements, such as:
Depictions of politics as a conflict between 'good' people and 'evil' elites.
Descriptions of the 'people' as a single, unified group with shared interests.
Clear identification of elites who dominate or exploit the people, framed as an immediate or ongoing threat.
For instance, Mugabe’s speech critiques the global north’s domination of the global south, using highly charged language about 'battering' and 'bullying.' He portrays the global south as a unified, oppressed people and names international organizations like the IMF and UN as tools of the elite.
It’s important to note that quotes are not a checklist. You don’t need to find evidence for every populist element to assign a high score. Instead, the rubric serves as a guide for recognizing these features.
Populist speeches may also call for systemic change, sometimes suggesting extreme measures, such as suppressing opponents’ access to media. While this is not a required feature of populism, it can strengthen the case for a higher score.
In contrast, pluralist or pragmatic speeches lack the dramatic, essentialist framing of populism. These speeches often focus on specific, localized issues, such as policy changes or infrastructure projects, and avoid framing the people as a homogenous, unified group. They may acknowledge different societal groups (e.g., teachers vs. pensioners) without attributing a single 'general will' to all.
When coding, translate non-English quotes into English and provide an explanation for your score in one or two summary paragraphs. Summarize the speech’s key themes, identify populist elements, and explain how they support your assigned score.
For each category of populist and non-populist elements, it is essential to include as many relevant citations from the discourse as possible, rather than limiting the analysis to a single example per category. This will ensure a more comprehensive and nuanced representation of how these elements manifest in political discourse.
AI Response to Step 6:
Here is the revised and properly coded analysis of Robert Mugabe’s speech using the correct holistic grading approach based on the improved method from Step 6:
Country: ZimbabweName of speaker: Robert MugabeDate of speech: September 2, 2002Place of speech: World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa)Populism Elements in Mugabe’s Speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World:
Speech quotes:
'The multilateral programme of action we set for ourselves at Rio has not only been unfulfilled, but it has also been ignored, sidelined and replaced by a half-baked unilateral agenda of globalization in the service of big corporate interests of the North. The focus is profit, not the poor, the process is globalization, not sustainable development, while the objective is exploitation, not liberation.'
'The unilateralism of the unipolar world has reduced the rest of mankind to collective underdogs, chattels of the rich, the willful few in the North who beat, batter and bully us under the dirty cover of democracy, rule of law and good governance. Otherwise, how would they undermine at global level the same values of good governance and rule of law they arrogantly demand from the South?'
'In our situation in Zimbabwe, this fundamental question has pitted the black majority who are the right-holders, and, therefore, primary stakeholders, to our land against an obdurate and internationally well-connected racial minority, largely of British descent and brought in and sustained by British colonialism.'
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification:
Speech quotes:
'as we look at the next decade we must honestly acknowledge those of our actions which have served mankind and those many others which have undermined our collective wellbeing. Clearly there has to be a paradigm shift from the globalized corporate model to a people centered paradigm that reaffirms that people must always come first in any process of sustainable development.'
Category 3: Populist notion of the people:
Speech quotes:
'For these reasons, we join our brothers and sisters in the Third World in rejecting completely manipulative and intimidatory attempts by some countries and regional blocks that are bent on subordinating our sovereignty to their hegemonic ambitions and imperial interests, falsely presented as matters of rule of law, democracy and good governance. The rule of law, democracy and governance are values that we cherish because we fought for them against the very same people who today seek to preach to us. The sustainable empowerment of the poor cannot take place in circumstances where democratic national sovereignties are assaulted and demonized on a daily basis. The poor should be able to use their sovereignty to fight poverty and preserve their heritage in their corner of the earth.'
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil:
Speech quotes:
'Over the years, these outdated institutions have been unilaterally transformed to dominate the world for the realization of the strategic national goals of the rich North.'
'Even the United Nations, a body that is supposed to give us equal voices, remains unreformed and undemocratic, largely because of resistance from the powerful and often selfish North.'
Category 5: Systemic Change:
Speech quotes:
'That is why we, in Zimbabwe, understand only too well that sustainable development is not possible without agrarian reforms that acknowledges, in our case, that land comes first before all else, and that all else grows from and off it.'
Category 6: Anything goes attitude:
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Non-Populist element in Mugabe’s Discourse
Category 1: Pluralist vision of the world
No quotes
Category 2: Concrete interpretation of political issues
No quotes
Category 3: Democracy as calculation of votes of individual citizens
No quotes
Category 4: Non-antagonistic view of opponents
No quotes
Category 5: Incremental reform
No quotes
Category 6: Commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties
Speech quotes:
Accordingly, my Government has decided to do the only right and just thing by taking back land and giving it to its rightful indigenous, black owners who lost it in circumstances of colonial pillage. This process is being done in accordance with the rule of law as enshrined in our national Constitution and laws. It is in pursuit of true justice as we know and understand it, and so we have no apologies to make to any one.
Overall Comments
The speech has some discursive elements to be considered populist. Firstly, there is an appeal to the Global South as the Third World or the poor countries that must defend their sovereignty. Secondly, there is an identification of evil elites represented in the Global North and the rich countries who impose neoliberal policies through international institutions like the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund on poor countries, affecting their sovereignty. In consequence, there is a Manichean vision of the world between the Global North, which is framed as evil because it promotes colonialism and exploitation, and the Global South, which is subjected to the policies promoted by the rich countries and corporate interests. At a national scale, the speech also identifies a conflict between the Black majority and the White minority, connected to the British imperialist past of Zimbabwe. Thirdly, there is a clear defense of the sovereignty and democracies of poor countries as the way to fulfill their liberation from the oppression of the Global North. Lastly, there are some elements of cosmic proportions in the speech, as the conflict between the North and the South is framed as potentially producing a paradigm shift for mankind. However, the speech lacks elements of an 'anything goes' attitude, instead defending the rule of law and the national Constitution. In consequence, there are some non-populist elements related to the commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties category.
Grade: 1.7
Instructor:
STEP 8 - Read and Code These Three SpeechesThat was a correct coding of Mugabe’s speech, and the method was correct as well.
The text below includes three speeches we would like you to code and compare to our coding. The speeches are from Tony Blair, Evo Morales, and Stephen Harper. Specifically, we would like you to identify the populism score (0-2 with decimal to the tenth place)
you would give each one of these speeches and the reasons why so that you can compare it to our scores and our reasons and make adjustments according:
Speech 1:
Tony Blair
Speech on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and EU enlargement 19 April 2004
When the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was set up in 1991, there was a unique opportunity to develop a new wider Europe, based on plural democracy and market-based economies. Today, only twelve days before the accession to the EU of 10 new member states, we can say with pride that the opportunity has been successfully seized. It is a credit to the Governments of the region, and a credit to the EBRD, which has played a vital role in the process thanks to its unique mandate. The extent and speed of change has been impressive. It may have been slower than some optimists hoped for at the start. And it has sometimes been painful for those losing the security and certainty of an old system and not seeing the early benefits of a new one. But the completion of the Europe's biggest ever enlargement, with the prospect of more countries joining in the years ahead, is the clearest sign that the reform journey has been worthwhile. The 1st May will be a genuinely historic day. The day that the division of Europe - the legacy of the Second World War and the Cold War - will be erased. The first day for new reunited Europe, for an EU of 25. It is a transformation which we can see for ourselves, whether in the high streets of Prague or Budapest, or in the conference rooms of Brussels. Europe has changed in a thousand ways, and for the better. From the outset, there has been no stronger supporter of the enlargement process than Britain. It has been a rather rare point of cross-party consensus in Britain, where Europe is concerned. This government has championed it energetically. We are proud of the part we have played - both up front and behind the scenes - to help the accession countries along the path to membership. You, the members and the staff of the EBRD also deserve to be proud. But the real achievement belongs to the ten countries which themselves have managed this transition. Enlargement will increase stability, security and prosperity in our region. It will help prevent conflict in Europe ever reoccurring. It will entrench and help spread democracy, the rule of law and human rights. It will widen our co-operation to face new threats - from environmental degradation to terrorism - together. It will create a vast free trade market of 450 million consumers is an enormous achievement, with immense potential for the future. Increased trade, investment, and competition will benefit us all - in the new EU countries and the existing members alike. In Britain, the Treasury estimates that 100,000 British jobs are already linked to the export of goods and services to the new EU member states. Our trade with the eight largest accession states has grown by almost 200% in the last decade. Studies predict that this trade will continue to expand, creating more jobs in the future. Of course enlargement also bring new challenges. It will force the EU to review its processes, institutions and ideas. It means that the EU has new neighbours, with whom we must strengthen our relationships. We must adapt to reflect our expanded membership, as well as the changing world in which we live. In particular, Europe must press ahead with the process of economic reform. I am convinced that the entry of ten new members will be a boost for this agenda. The record of modernisation which the new members have demonstrated in the last decade and a half is an inspiring example to all of us. Their proven determination and commitment to reform will be an asset to the whole of the EU. Ten years ago, few of us would have envisaged the shape of Europe we now live in. But few could deny that Europe is today a more secure, stable and prosperous place. This enlargement has undoubtedly been one of the European project's greatest success stories. Now we must sustain the process so future generations can continue to reap the benefits. We hope to complete negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania by end of this year. Then we have a crucial decision on Turkey in December, with the chance to anchor Turkey's place in Europe. And we have the prospect of future membership for the Western Balkans. That is why the EBRD will still have a very important role in the years ahead. The EBRD has been at the heart of the process of transition, supporting the economic and political transformation of many nations over the last thirteen years. The Bank was not set up to exist for ever. It is there to help countries make the transition, to a point where their own domestic institutions and investors and international business provide the basis for their economic growth. The transition is not yet finished in the countries which are about to join the EU. The EBRD will still help them complete this process. But as they gain a new framework of support as EU members, and as the interest of international investors grows, the EBRD's role should naturally fall away over the years to come. Nevertheless, there is still a major role for the Bank in countries further east and south. You are already playing a key role in Bulgaria and Romania. The Bank has assisted international efforts for stabilization and reconstruction in the Balkans. It has become an increasingly important partner in Russia's reform efforts. This vital work must continue. The Bank needs to make a more concerted effort in those countries of the region which are at an early stage of transition. These countries require substantial help to reduce poverty, to promote growth and tackle corruption, organised crime and HIV/AIDS. The EBRD can bring its unique mix of private sector expertise, institutional experience and finance to bear. But it needs the commitment of the countries themselves, new interest from domestic and international investors, effective coordination with the international community and grant support. We strongly welcome the Bank's new initiative to support the early transition countries. The UK is ready to engage with the Bank in shaping this initiative and in giving new financial support. Within the Bank this agenda needs to be promoted as a core priority. The Bank must continue to search for ways to engage constructively in countries where problems exist over political reform. This is not about imposing a particular form of democracy from outside. Rather, it reflects the beliefs of the Bank's founders, confirmed in practice, that political reform and economic progress are inextricably linked. The EBRD has much to be proud of - and there could be no better time to recognise that than the eve of the EU's enlargement. It is also well positioned to meet the new challenges. Its location in the City of London enables it to benefit from a huge range of expertise and experience close to hand. Its leadership and its staff have shown themselves ready to take on the next set of challenges with vigour. It remains for me only to congratulate President Lemierre, the management and staff of the Bank on your achievements, and to wish you a very successful Annual Meeting here in London, and every success in the years ahead.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page5654.asp
Speech 2:
By EVO MORALES
This is the text of a speech given in 2003 shortly after the events mentioned in the speech.]
What happened these past days in Bolivia was a great revolt by those who have been oppressed for more than 500 years. The will of the people was imposed this September and October, and has begun to overcome the empire’s cannons. We have lived for so many years through the confrontation of two cultures: the culture of life represented by the indigenous people, and the culture of death represented by West. When we the indigenous people–together with the workers and even the businessmen of our country–fight for life and justice, the State responds with its 'democratic rule of law.'
What does the 'rule of law' mean for indigenous people? For the poor, the marginalized, the excluded, the 'rule of law' means the targeted assassinations and collective massacres that we have endured. Not just this September and October, but for many years, in which they have tried to impose policies of hunger and poverty on the Bolivian people. Above all, the 'rule of law' means the accusations that we, the Quechuas, Aymaras and Guaranties of Bolivia keep hearing from our governments: that we are narcos, that we are anarchists. This uprising of the Bolivian people has been not only about gas and hydrocarbons, but an intersection of many issues: discrimination, marginalization , and most importantly, the failure of neoliberalism.
The cause of all these acts of bloodshed, and for the uprising of the Bolivian people, has a name: neoliberalism. With courage and defiance, we brought down Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada–the symbol of neoliberalism in our country–on October 17, the Bolivians’ day of dignity and identity. We began to bring down the symbol of corruption and the political mafia.
And I want to tell you, companeras and companeros, how we have built the consciousness of the Bolivian people from the bottom up. How quickly the Bolivian people have reacted, have said–as Subcomandate Marcos says–ya basta!, enough policies of hunger and misery.
For us, October 17th is the beginning of a new phase of construction. Most importantly, we face the task of ending selfishness and individualism, and creating–from the rural campesino and indigenous communities to the urban slums–other forms of living, based on solidarity and mutual aid. We must think about how to redistribute the wealth that is concentrated among few hands. This is the great task we Bolivian people face after this great uprising.
It has been very important to organize and mobilize ourselves in a way based on transparency, honesty, and control over our own organizations. And it has been important not only to organize but also to unite. Here we are now, united intellectuals in defense of humanity–I think we must have not only unity among the social movements, but also that we must coordinate with the intellectual movements. Every gathering, every event of this nature for we labor leaders who come from the social struggle, is a great lesson that allows us to exchange experiences and to keep strengthening our people and our grassroots organizations.
Thus, in Bolivia, our social movements, our intellectuals, our workers–even those political parties which support the popular struggle joined together to drive out Gonzalo Sánchez Lozada. Sadly, we paid the price with many of our lives, because the empire’s arrogance and tyranny continue humiliating the Bolivian people.
It must be said, compañeras and compañeros, that we must serve the social and popular movements rather than the transnational corporations. I am new to politics; I had hated it and had been afraid of becoming a career politician. But I realized that politics had once been the science of serving the people, and that getting involved in politics is important if you want to help your people. By getting involved, I mean living for politics, rather than living off of politics. We have coordinated our struggles between the social movements and political parties, with the support of our academic institutions, in a way that has created a greater national consciousness. That is what made it possible for the people to rise up in these recent days.
When we speak of the 'defense of humanity,' as we do at this event, I think that this only happens by eliminating neoliberalism and imperialism. But I think that in this we are not so alone, because we see, every day that anti-imperialist thinking is spreading, especially after Bush’s bloody 'intervention' policy in Iraq. Our way of organizing and uniting against the system, against the empire’s aggression towards our people, is spreading, as are the strategies for creating and strengthening the power of the people.
I believe only in the power of the people. That was my experience in my own region, a single province–the importance of local power. And now, with all that has happened in Bolivia, I have seen the importance of the power of a whole people, of a whole nation. For those of us who believe it important to defend humanity, the best contribution we can make is to help create that popular power. This happens when we check our personal interests with those of the group. Sometimes, we commit to the social movements in order to win power. We need to be led by the people, not use or manipulate them.
We may have differences among our popular leaders–and it’s true that we have them in Bolivia. But when the people are conscious, when the people know what needs to be done, any difference among the different local leaders ends. We’ve been making progress in this for a long time, so that our people are finally able to rise up, together.
What I want to tell you, compañeras and compañeros–what I dream of and what we as leaders from Bolivia dream of is that our task at this moment should be to strengthen anti-imperialist thinking. Some leaders are now talking about how we–the intellectuals, the social and political movements–can organize a great summit of people like Fidel, Chávez. and Lula to say to everyone: 'We are here, taking a stand against the aggression of the US imperialism.'
A summit at which we are joined by compañera Rigoberta Menchú, by other social and labor leaders, great personalities like Pérez Ezquivel. A great summit to say to our people that we are together, united, and defending humanity. We have no other choice, compañeros and compañeras–if we want to defend humanity we must change systems and this means overthrowing US imperialism.
EVO MORALES is the newly elected president of Bolivia
Speech 3:
The Federal Accountability Act
04 November 2005
Address by the Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada Leader of the Official Opposition
OTTAWA Friday November 4, 2005
**CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY **
Dear Friends,
Earlier this week, Justice John Gomery confirmed what many Canadians suspected:
The Liberal party established the Sponsorship program,
The Liberal party ran the Sponsorship program, and
And the Liberal party used the Sponsorship program to enrich Liberals and finance Liberal election campaigns.
The judge was clear. He said there was, quote: 'clear evidence of political involvement in the administration of the sponsorship program'
Quote: 'A complex web of financial transactions… involving kickbacks and illegal contributions' to the Liberal party.
And, quote: 'A culture of entitlement among political officials and bureaucrats involved with the sponsorship program'Illegal cash and kickbacks
Fake contracts for no work
A culture of entitlement and corruption
These are no longer media speculations or partisan statements. These are findings of fact in a judicial inquiry.
Quebeckers, especially, are rightfully angry and outraged. This government lied to them! This government betrayed them!
But to people at home this is about more than the specific sordid details of this particular scandal.It’s about accountability. Accountability is what Canadians expect when they send their hard-earned tax dollars to Ottawa. It’s what they deserve.
Government exists to serve the public.
To serve ordinary Canadians
To serve the people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules.
It’s their money that was stolen. It’s their trust that was broken. And no one has been held accountable.
When I become Prime Minister I will undertake an unprecedented overhaul of the federal government, introducing sweeping reforms to make Ottawa accountable.
That is my commitment to you. Cleaning up government begins at the top.
Paul Martin said he was mad as hell about sponsorship. He went on to blame federal public servants. He blamed former ministers. He blamed his predecessor.
But under Paul Martin’s watch, the waste, mismanagement and corruption has continued. We’ve seen Art Eggleton, a man Jean Chretien fired for giving an untendered contract to a former girlfriend; get rewarded by Paul Martin with a seat in the senate.
We’ve seen Paul Martin working on a half-million dollar severance deal with David Dingwall The guy who hired Chuck Guité to run government advertising, who as an unregistered lobbyist who accepted improper payments, and as a patronage champion who quit his job.
We’ve seen lobbyists making their pitch to Paul Martin and his ministers at $5000 per person cocktail parties. It has to stop. And it will. Most Canadians don’t think that political office should be a guaranteed, permanent career. It should be a worthy form of limited public service. We all know people in our communities who have served for a term or two on city council, the provincial legislature, as a member of parliament or as one of any of their dedicated staff.
And I think we admire most those who after having done what they came to do, simply decide to return to their former jobs and their former lives. Rather than hanging on in office or around government as lobbyists or political appointees.
I think we all have more respect for those citizens who run for office to change politics, not to have politics change them. And that is how I want to treat my time in public office
I’m here to do a job, not to join a club, not to buy into a lifestyle. And there is no more important job to do than cleaning up government and bringing accountabilty back to Ottawa.
If we don’t clean up government, it will compromise our ability to use government as a force for good in this country.
To ensure people get timely access to health care.
To crack down on crime.
To reduce taxes and reward hard work.
To improve the quality of our life in communities.
And yes, to keep our country united.
Canada’s unity is not a reserve of money hidden in the Prime Minister’s office. Not about contracts given to some friends to capitalize on our flag. Not about advertising agencies that created and built Canada.
It is about generations of men and women, from different cultures and backgrounds, who shared, and still do, common ambitions and values.
It is about a Quebec government, over 30 years ago, adopting the most severe and most equitable laws against election corruption.
The federal Liberals didn’t understand that message.
I am telling you today that I will follow this example, as Prime Minister of Canada.
As I’ve already said, as Prime Minister, I will ensure to follow-up Justice Gomery’s findings. We will not only prosecute agencies and individuals; but, as the judge said, the Liberal Party of Canada is responsible as an institution. And the Liberal party will be prosecuted.
Even this exercise will be meaningless unless our government is different. We must clean up corruption and lift the veils of secrecy that allow it to flourish. We must do nothing less than replace the culture of entitlement with the culture of accountability.
As Prime Minister the first piece of legislation I will introduce will be the Federal Accountability Act. The Federal Accountability Act will change the way business is done in Ottawa.
It will give more power to the auditor general, the ethics commissioner, the information commissioner, and the lobbyist registrar.
To make sure that these independent officers of parliament can hold the government accountable. It will make sure that all of the over $30 billion in federal grants, contributions and contracts are awarded fairly and provide value for taxpayers’ money. It will give real protection to those who blow the whistle on unethical behaviour.
It will open the windows on government with long overdue reforms to access to information laws. It will make sure that appointments to public office are fair and based on merit and qualifications.
As some of you may already know: I am not in politics because I am a good dancer or particularly funny. What I want, with the trust of my party, and with the support of all Canadians who want change, is to give a dynamic and honest government to the country we all love.
Nothing more. And nothing less.
I want to highlight three areas of the Federal Accountability Act today.
First and most importantly, this act will end the influence of big money and crack down on a lobbying culture that has thrived under Paul Martin.
As Prime Minister, I will ban all remaining corporate and union donations to federal political parties, period.
People vote, not corporations and unions. And only voters should be funding political parties.
Politics will no longer be a stepping stone to a lucrative career lobbying government.
I will close the loopholes that allow MPs and candidates to create secret personal trust funds. And I will cap all donations to federal political parties at a maximum of $1,000 per year.
This means no more big interests lobbying the Prime Minister at behind closed doors $5,000 a ticket cocktail parties.
This means no more hidden slush funds controlled by MPs and riding associations. All political campaigns will be funded by modest personal donations from people who believe in their cause not by special interests who think they can buy influence with politicians.
Second, we are going to crackdown on the revolving door between ministers’ offices, the senior public service, and the lobbying industry.
We will ban all former ministers, ministerial staffers, or senior public officials from lobbying government for five years. We will require all ministers and senior officials to record their contacts with lobbyists. And we will make sure that there are real teeth and real penalties to enforce the Lobbyist Registration Act.
Taken together, our changes would have prevented a Liberal candidate and Martin insider like Richard Mahoney from lobbying for his clients at Liberal fundraisers without registering. And, they would have prevented David Dingwall from lobbying his old colleagues in government and accepting unethical contingency fee contracts.
Politics will no longer be a stepping stone to a lucrative career lobbying government. Make no mistake, if there are MPs in the room who want to use public office for their own benefit, if there are hill staffers who dream of making it rich trying to lobby a future Conservative government,
If that’s true of any of you, you had better make different plans. Or leave.
Third, as I’ve said we are going to mandate the Auditor General to do a complete review of all of the more than 30 billion dollars in federal grants, contributions, and contracts. The Federal Accountability Act will give her the power to 'follow the money' to the end recipients.
She must be able to find out whether money has been stolen, misused, or kicked back to political parties after it has left the federal treasury. Had she had this authority, she might have uncovered the depth of the sponsorship scandal three years ago or more. These and many more changes explained in detail in the Federal Accountability Act will change the way that politics and government is done in this country. Friends, no government is perfect because none of us are perfect. We cannot 'dream of a system so perfect that no one will have to be good.' Whatever the system of rules, we have a duty to do what’s best for the public good when we take the oath of public office.
When I become Prime Minister, those in government will have to serve the public interest, not their personal interests. We are going to change the way government works, not just change the colour on the letterhead.
Now the liberals will say that they too are comitted to reform. They say they will bring in changes to the administration of the public service. And they say that the second Gomery report will have even more ideas for reforming institutions.
We will listen to those ideas for reform.
But this scandal did not happen because of bad public servants or poor auditing. It is a scandal that happened because of the culture of entitlement and corruption in the Liberal party. And the veils of secrecy it has allowed to close around our federal government. The Liberal party has proved incapable of reforming itself.
It only acts after it has been caught.
And its actions are always half measures.
We cannot change the system by asking the opinions of judges and accountants.
As a democratic society, we must hold accountable the party and the people who allowed this to happen under their watch. Creating a different way of doing government must begin by electing a different government. The time has passed for weak reforms, promises, excuses, crocodile tears
It is time to change governments
Only a new government can ensure that those responsible are held accountable to the full extent of the law. And only a new government will be able to impose real reforms that will weed out the remaining problems root and branch.
When I am prime minister we will bring in the Federal Accountability Act. It will not make things perfect, but it will ensure that people are held to account for their actions. This plan which I have introduced is my commitment to Canadians to clean up government and change it forever.
I am proud to be the leader of the new Conservative Party of Canada – very proud. But I don’t want to be the Prime Minister of the Conservatives.
I am also very proud to live in Alberta. But I don’t want to be the Prime Minister of western Canada.
I want to be the Prime Minister of all Canadians. Of all those who work hard to give a better life to their children, to their communities and to their country
It is my personal word as a taxpayer, as a father, and as a fellow citizen.
I want to get this job done.
When my political career is over, I want to leave knowing that future governments will have to be more honest, more ethical, and more accountable.
But I need your help to do so.
If we want to make the Federal Accountability Act a reality, if we want to change the way the system works, we have to begin by changing this government.
Join me. Stand up for clean government. Stand up for accountability. Stand up for Canada. Thank you. God bless Canada.
AI Response to Step 8:
Here’s my holistic grading for each speech based on the rubric, along with a detailed analysis and justification.
Populism Score for Tony Blair’s Speech: 0.0
Justification for the Score
Tony Blair’s speech on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and EU enlargement does not contain any significant elements of populist discourse. It lacks the Manichaean worldview that characterizes populist rhetoric, as it does not frame politics in terms of an absolute struggle between good and evil. Instead, Blair’s speech is pragmatic, focusing on economic reform, trade, and institutional change within the framework of European integration.
Blair does not construct a homogeneous 'people' with a unified will that must be defended against a corrupt elite. Instead, he acknowledges multiple actors with different roles in European development, including governments, financial institutions, and investors. His tone remains pluralist and diplomatic, emphasizing cooperation between different nations rather than conflict or polarization.
There is no identification of an antagonistic elite conspiring against 'the people.' While he mentions challenges such as corruption and organized crime, he frames them as policy issues to be addressed through institutional reform, not as evidence of a grand conspiracy. His view of democracy is procedural, emphasizing incremental change rather than revolutionary transformation. Moreover, there is no 'anything goes' attitude—Blair consistently upholds institutional norms, economic liberalization, and democratic governance.
Overall, Blair’s speech is highly pragmatic, technocratic, and institutionally oriented, focusing on cooperation, trade, and economic stability rather than on populist themes of struggle, systemic crisis, or elite conspiracy. For these reasons, the speech receives a final populism score of 0.0.
Categorization of Populist and Non-Populist Elements
Populist Elements in Blair’s Speech
- Category 1 (Manichaean Vision of the World): Absent
- Category 2 (Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification): Absent
- Category 3 (Populist Notion of the People): Absent
- Category 4 (The Elite as a Conspiring Evil): Absent
- Category 5 (Systemic Change): Absent
- Category 6 (Anything Goes Attitude): Absent
Non-Populist Elements in Blair’s Speech
Category 1 (Pluralist Vision of the World): Present
- Quote: 'Enlargement will increase stability, security, and prosperity in our region. It will help prevent conflict in Europe ever reoccurring. It will entrench and help spread democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.'
- Analysis: Blair frames the EU enlargement as a broad benefit for all stakeholders rather than a moral struggle between 'the people' and an elite enemy.
Category 2 (Concrete Interpretation of Political Issues): Present
- Quote: 'The Bank needs to make a more concerted effort in those countries of the region which are at an early stage of transition. These countries require substantial help to reduce poverty, to promote growth and tackle corruption, organized crime, and HIV/AIDS.'
- Analysis: The speech remains focused on policy specifics rather than vague or grandiose historical narratives.
Category 3 (Democracy as Calculation of Votes of Individual Citizens): Present
- Quote: 'This is not about imposing a particular form of democracy from outside. Rather, it reflects the beliefs of the Bank’s founders, confirmed in practice, that political reform and economic progress are inextricably linked.'
- Analysis: Blair upholds a procedural understanding of democracy rather than a populist 'general will' narrative.
Category 4 (Non-Antagonistic View of Opponents): Present
- Quote: 'The transition is not yet finished in the countries which are about to join the EU. The EBRD will still help them complete this process.'
- Analysis: Blair does not demonize any group or institution; instead, he acknowledges that the process of reform is ongoing.
Category 5 (Incremental Reform): Present
- Quote: 'Now we must sustain the process so future generations can continue to reap the benefits.'
- Analysis: The speech promotes gradual institutional improvements, not a call for systemic overthrow.
Category 6 (Commitment to Institutional Norms, Rights, and Liberties): Present
- Quote: 'The EBRD has much to be proud of—and there could be no better time to recognize that than the eve of the EU’s enlargement.'
- Analysis: Blair affirms respect for existing institutions rather than advocating for their radical transformation.
Final Assessment
Tony Blair’s speech is a textbook example of a non-populist, institutional, and technocratic discourse. It emphasizes stability, economic integration, procedural democracy, and incremental reform, avoiding polarization, moralistic rhetoric, or anti-elite narratives. For these reasons, the speech is assigned a final populism score of 0.0.
4o
Populism Score for Evo Morales’ Speech: 2.0
Justification for the Score
Evo Morales' speech is strongly and consistently populist, fulfilling all six of the key elements of populist discourse. His rhetoric is highly Manichaean, presenting a stark battle between good ('the people') and evil ('the empire, neoliberalism, and imperialism'). Morales constructs 'the people' as an oppressed, virtuous majority, specifically indigenous groups, workers, and grassroots social movements, while the elite enemy is the imperialist West, transnational corporations, and neoliberal politicians. He calls for radical systemic change, explicitly advocating for the overthrow of neoliberalism and imperialism, which he frames as the root of Bolivia's suffering.
Morales' speech is deeply historically reified, as he connects contemporary struggles to 500 years of oppression by colonial and imperialist forces. He also exhibits an 'anything goes' attitude, justifying mass uprisings and revolutions, and portraying violence as an unavoidable consequence of fighting against oppression. He does not position himself as a defender of institutional norms but instead frames institutions like the state and the rule of law as tools of oppression. His references to popular power, unity, and national consciousness reinforce the idea that the true will of the people must prevail over traditional democratic structures.
This speech is a textbook case of fully developed populist rhetoric, with no significant non-populist elements present. For these reasons, the speech receives the maximum populism score of 2.0.
Categorization of Populist and Non-Populist Elements
Populist Elements in Morales’ Speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World - Strongly Present
Morales frames the struggle in absolute moral terms, with indigenous people and workers representing 'life' and justice, while the West and neoliberalism represent 'death' and oppression.
Speech quotes:
'We have lived for so many years through the confrontation of two cultures: the culture of life represented by the indigenous people, and the culture of death represented by the West.'
'When we the indigenous people–together with the workers and even the businessmen of our country–fight for life and justice, the State responds with its ‘democratic rule of law.’'
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification - Strongly Present
Morales presents the Bolivian struggle as part of a larger historical movement, spanning 500 years of oppression, and positions October 17th as a turning point in history.
Speech quotes:
'What happened these past days in Bolivia was a great revolt by those who have been oppressed for more than 500 years.'
'For us, October 17th is the beginning of a new phase of construction.'
Category 3: Populist Notion of 'The People' - Strongly Present
Morales romanticizes 'the people,' portraying them as a unified, morally righteous majority. He emphasizes that true politics should serve the people, not elites or corporations.
Speech quotes:
'I believe only in the power of the people.'
'We need to be led by the people, not use or manipulate them.'
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil - Strongly Present
Morales identifies neoliberalism, transnational corporations, and US imperialism as the corrupt elite conspiring against the people.
Speech quotes:
'The cause of all these acts of bloodshed, and for the uprising of the Bolivian people, has a name: neoliberalism.'
'If we want to defend humanity we must change systems and this means overthrowing US imperialism.'
Category 5: Systemic Change - Strongly Present
Morales argues for a complete transformation of Bolivia's political and economic system, emphasizing the overthrow of neoliberalism and the redistribution of wealth.
Speech quotes:
'This uprising of the Bolivian people has been not only about gas and hydrocarbons, but an intersection of many issues: discrimination, marginalization, and most importantly, the failure of neoliberalism.'
'We must think about how to redistribute the wealth that is concentrated among few hands.'
Category 6: Anything Goes Attitude - Strongly Present
Morales justifies revolutionary uprisings, dismisses traditional democratic institutions, and embraces radical action against imperialism.
Speech quotes:
'Sadly, we paid the price with many of our lives, because the empire’s arrogance and tyranny continue humiliating the Bolivian people.'
'We have no other choice, compañeros and compañeras–if we want to defend humanity we must change systems and this means overthrowing US imperialism.'
Non-Populist Elements in Morales’ Speech
- Category 1: Pluralist Vision of the World → Absent
- Category 2: Concrete Interpretation of Political Issues → Absent
- Category 3: Democracy as Calculation of Votes of Individual Citizens → Absent
- Category 4: Non-Antagonistic View of Opponents → Absent
- Category 5: Incremental Reform → Absent
- Category 6: Commitment to Institutional Norms, Rights, and Liberties → Absent
Final Assessment
Evo Morales’ speech perfectly exemplifies populist discourse. It is highly polarizing, depicting a heroic people versus a corrupt and oppressive elite, rooted in historical grievances and advocating for systemic revolution. Morales' call for overthrowing US imperialism and neoliberalism, his portrayal of politics as a moral struggle, and his rejection of traditional democratic institutions align precisely with the highest levels of populism. There are no significant pluralist or non-populist elements in his speech, reinforcing its maximal populist score.
Final Populism Score: 2.0
4o
Populism Score for Stephen Harper’s Speech: 1.4
Justification for the Score
Stephen Harper’s speech contains some populist elements, particularly anti-elite rhetoric and a moralistic critique of corruption, but it lacks the full populist framework seen in highly populist speeches. His discourse identifies a corrupt elite—the Liberal Party—as opposed to the honest, hardworking people of Canada, which aligns with populist discourse on accountability and systemic corruption. However, Harper’s speech remains largely proceduralist and institutionalist, focusing on policy solutions, legislative reforms, and democratic checks and balances rather than revolutionary or systemic change.
His tone is combative, and he frames political office as a struggle against an entrenched elite culture. However, rather than presenting an all-encompassing Manichaean struggle between 'the people' and 'a conspiring elite', Harper’s criticism is focused on one political party (the Liberals) and does not reject the entire democratic system. This makes his populist rhetoric more issue-specific rather than ideological.
Harper also upholds institutional norms by advocating for procedural reforms, transparency measures, and accountability laws. He does not call for the overthrow of institutions or a radical restructuring of the political system, which distinguishes his speech from more extreme forms of populism.
Because his speech contains clear populist themes but also maintains a commitment to institutional reforms and democratic procedures, it receives a moderate populism score of 1.4.
Categorization of Populist and Non-Populist Elements
Populist Elements in Harper’s Speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World - Moderately Present
Harper frames politics as a moral struggle between good and evil, where he and his party represent accountability and honesty, while the Liberals represent corruption and betrayal.
Speech quotes:
'Illegal cash and kickbacks. Fake contracts for no work. A culture of entitlement and corruption.'
'Quebeckers, especially, are rightfully angry and outraged. This government lied to them! This government betrayed them!'
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification - Weakly Present
Harper hints at a grand historical mission, particularly in defending Canada's unity and restoring moral governance, but does not elevate it to cosmic or revolutionary proportions.
Speech quotes:
'If we don’t clean up government, it will compromise our ability to use government as a force for good in this country.'
Category 3: Populist Notion of 'The People' - Moderately Present
Harper contrasts ordinary, hardworking Canadians with the corrupt political elite. He portrays 'the people' as taxpayers, workers, and citizens who follow the rules, while politicians betray them.
Speech quotes:
'Government exists to serve the public. To serve ordinary Canadians. To serve the people who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules.'
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil - Strongly Present
Harper directly attacks the ruling elite, focusing specifically on the Liberal Party, accusing it of systemic corruption, fraud, and cronyism.
Speech quotes:
'The Liberal party established the Sponsorship program. The Liberal party ran the Sponsorship program. And the Liberal party used the Sponsorship program to enrich Liberals and finance Liberal election campaigns.'
Category 5: Systemic Change - Weakly Present
Unlike more extreme populist leaders, Harper does not argue that the entire system is corrupt, but rather that one party has misused it. His solution is incremental reform, not revolutionary overhaul.
Speech quotes:
'The Federal Accountability Act will change the way business is done in Ottawa.'
Category 6: Anything Goes Attitude - Absent
Harper does not justify bypassing democratic norms or undermining institutions. Instead, he advocates for procedural reform and transparency.
Speech quotes:
'When I am prime minister, we will bring in the Federal Accountability Act. It will not make things perfect, but it will ensure that people are held to account for their actions.'
Non-Populist Elements in Harper’s Speech
Category 1: Pluralist Vision of the World - Present
Harper does not reject the entire democratic system; instead, he focuses on cleaning up corruption within it.
Speech quotes:
'We cannot change the system by asking the opinions of judges and accountants. As a democratic society, we must hold accountable the party and the people who allowed this to happen under their watch.'
Category 2: Concrete Interpretation of Political Issues - Present
Harper focuses on specific legislative and institutional changes, rather than mystical or symbolic narratives.
Speech quotes:
'The Federal Accountability Act will give [the Auditor General] the power to ‘follow the money’ to the end recipients.'
Category 3: Democracy as Calculation of Votes of Individual Citizens - Present
Harper frames democracy as a set of procedural mechanisms that need reform, not replacement.
Speech quotes:
'Politics will no longer be a stepping stone to a lucrative career lobbying government.'
Category 4: Non-Antagonistic View of Opponents - Absent
Harper’s speech is highly antagonistic toward the Liberal Party, portraying it as wholly corrupt.
Category 5: Incremental Reform - Present
Harper argues for institutional reforms rather than revolutionary changes.
Speech quotes:
'These and many more changes explained in detail in the Federal Accountability Act will change the way that politics and government is done in this country.'
Category 6: Commitment to Institutional Norms, Rights, and Liberties - Present
Harper reaffirms institutional mechanisms, such as accountability offices, ethics commissions, and transparency laws.
Speech quotes:
'It will give more power to the auditor general, the ethics commissioner, the information commissioner, and the lobbyist registrar.'
Final Assessment
Stephen Harper’s speech incorporates strong anti-elite rhetoric and frames politics as a struggle between honest citizens and corrupt politicians, making it moderately populist. However, it lacks extreme elements of systemic change, cosmic proportions, or a rejection of democratic institutions, keeping it closer to reformist populism rather than radical populism. His commitment to institutional norms, procedural democracy, and policy-driven solutions prevents the speech from reaching higher levels of populism.
Final Populism Score: 1.4
Instructor
STEP 9 - Watch part two of section twoHere is the transcript of the video training that a human researcher would watch if one were to take the training. Read and absorb the information below as if you were a researcher learning about classifying documents based on the populist discourse in the document. This transcript includes the correct coding of the three speeches in the previous step. Compare your coding to our coding and make adjustments accordingly. Make sure you maintain this information and scale for future coding:
The task was to code three speeches, one given by Tony Blair, one by Evo Morales, former president of Bolivia aa, and one by Stephen Harper former Prime Minister of Canada.
Let's start with Tony Blair. This is a zero, it's a 0.0, this is one of the least populist speeches you could ever find. It's very pragmatic, it's very pluralist, there's no mention of any kind of general will, there's no elite, there's no evil elite creeping on us, it has a very democratic, very respectful language, it's very positive, positive toned, the whole speech.
This is not only a categorical zero, this is also in the decimals, it's a 0.0. There is some room for interpretation, so decimals are fine, but your score should be very low. One thing to highlight is that you shouldn’t feel scared to give it a 0.0. There are some speeches that are just not populist at all, and you don't have to say, 'well, there's maybe this one element that fits into this box, so for example, that he referred to history in a reified way that highlights the significance of the moment'. The bottom line is that he doesn’t really have any populist notion of the people or a struggle with a conspiring elite.He mentions problems and challenges to overcome, but these are framed impersonally. He doesn’t mention enemies. And when he does talk about people, he uses phrases such as 'consumers,' which treats people as economic agents rather than a unified political actor with sovereignty. Without the core elements of a populist people and a conspiring elite, it just isn’t populist. This is a total zero.
Now, the second speech by Stephen Harper, this is a categorical 1, and there's some range for interpretation, so there's good range somewhere between a 0.6, which runs up to a 1, to a 1.2, 1.3, which one is more or less open to your interpretation, how you saw the elements of the speech. There's definitely a notion of an elite: The Liberal Party, which were leading the government in Canada at the time of the speech, they are the embodiment of this corrupt elite that is striving on big money.
So this speech came out right after a huge corruption scandal against then Prime Minister Martin in Canada, who was leading the Liberal Party. Harper, as the leader of the opposition, talks about how the government had betrayed ordinary Canadians, ordinary Canadians being the people who work hard, these people who have common ambitions and values. So there's this clear romanticization of the people, and there's this clear opposition between the good, hardworking people of Canada and their corrupt government that is just serving the interests of lobbyists.
On the other hand, the reason the speech is not a two–so, it has the necessary elements of populism, this contradiction between people and elite, essentialized view of the people is there–it is not a two, because first, the language is not that strong. So he refers to the corrupt elite that's striving on big money, he talks about the lobbyist interests and all that, but it's not what we see, for example, in Morales’s speech, when he talks about neoliberalism or imperialism’s 'culture of life', or what we saw, the kind of language that we saw with Robert Mugabe's speech on the previous session. So it lacks this very bellicose, charged language, it lacks an 'anything goes' attitude in relation to the Liberal Party, and it lacks any call for systemic change.
So Harper doesn't say we have to change the entire system of government in Canada, we just have to replace the party in government, and doing so through regular electoral democratic procedures. So he doesn't call for the Liberal Party to be extinguished from politics, to be removed from political life, he doesn't call for any kind of systemic change in the way the Canadian political system works, he just says we need to get rid of them in new elections. So there are the necessary elements of populism there, but they're not strongly used, and they're not so consistently used throughout the speech, so that is categorically a one.
Finally, we have the last speech that's by Evo Morales. This one is a categorical 2, and by that I mean a 2.0. So some of you may have given it a lower decimal of 1.6 or 1.8, but really this is a very populist speech. In our research we haven’t found any speeches that are more populist than this. When we see a speech like this that fits all of the categories, that has all of the necessary elements, that are consistently used throughout the speech, we should have confidence to give it a similar high score.
And what do we see in this speech? It's very clear who are the people. There's several references to these people as one whole thing, the will of the people, the actions of the people, 'the people' wants this and 'the people' wants that. And this people consists of the common people of Bolivia–in this case, the poor and the indigenous groups. In other countries with right populists, like Canada, this 'people' might be the taxpaying middle class, but what makes this speech stand out as a populist one is its reference to the will of the poor citizens of Bolivia.
There's also a very clearly defined evil elite that keeps coming up over and over and over in US imperialism, US neoliberalism. There's a very charged language, so there's this quote that a couple of you mentioned, of the culture of death by the West, and this is this kind of cosmic proportional, cosmic proportions good versus evil struggle kind of language that is clear of the Manichaean aspect of populism.
Finally, he also talks about systemic change. He wants to change the international system entirely to overthrow US imperialism and US neoliberalism, and this is not just, we have to stop doing business with them, it is we have to reshape the entire international system, this is a call for systemic change. So all of the necessary elements are there, they're consistently used and they're strong and the presence is felt throughout the speech. And non-populist elements? I don’t see any in this speech.So this speech by Evo Morales, if you see a speech that is as populist as this, feel free to give it a 2.0, this is as populist as it gets.
There's more populism in some others, but this is what we're looking for in the ideal typical populist speech. Now, there wasn't much disagreement about these grades, so we don't have to discuss them too much more, but just some technical details on filling out the rubrics that came up. So most of you did a fine job in most parts of filling out the rubrics, so these are some points just to draw your attention to them and make sure that we fix it the next time.
First, always assign a decimal, so when you give the final grade and say this is a two, even if you think this is a 2.0, tell us this is a 2.0 or this is a 1.0 or so on, so it's always important to assign a decimal, and it's also always important to keep the category you choose, so give us the final grade, the 1.5, and keep the category that you chose, and this is especially important when you're giving a 1.5 because sometimes people make some confusion with the rounding, so it happens sometimes that someone gives a 1.5 and by mistake they think oh that rounds down to a one, and then they leave the one category there, so if you leave the category that you chose, we can catch those kinds of possible mistakes, so always give the decimal grade and keep the category that you chose, and always delete the ones you didn't, it just makes it easier for us to pick up on the category that you gave, and once again, if there's a 1.5 but you meant to say it was a one, we can catch on those small mistakes. Finally, decimals are bound between zero and two, so you cannot give a 2.2 to a speech.
The speech goes from zero to two and that's it, so even if we are talking about a speech that is very very populist, it's more populist than moralist, it's still going to be a two because the two means this is the perfect populist speech. Now, coming up to the filling up the boxes, first of all, when you're putting a quote in there, especially if it's a very popular speech and it's one of these very important boxes defining who is the people or who is the elite, add some more than this, so add either more quotes or longer, one but longer quote showing this is the elite, these are the groups that belong to the elite, and here's how this speaker characterizes these groups as evil, so a couple of different quotes where they say about how the US is oppressing other nations, something like that would help to get the point across that here's the elite and they are really evil. Second thing on the boxes, they should only have direct quotes, so in this part again where we're defining who is the evil, don't tell us oh these are the entities that are identified throughout the speech, the part for you to use our own words is the overall comments at the end, here you should just add the direct quotes from the speech.
Second, remember when conducting holistic grading, the evaluation should not be analytical regarding individual components but should instead focus on the overall discourse to determine a final score. Therefore, the analysis should not indicate the presence, absence, or intensity of each populist or non-populist category separately. Instead, it should identify key quotations that help justify the overall grade assigned to the text.
Third, this is the same rubric from the same person, not from the same person from previous slides, but it's two shots of one rubric and there's no quotes in here and there always must be quotes in the boxes, so we have to see what kind of words the leader themselves used so that they justify the grade that you gave, so always include at least some quotes in at least some boxes and especially in this case when the grade was a two, because for the morale of speech you have to give a quote for the box where we're asking how is the people defined and for the box defining who is the evil elite, so this is essential, you have to always give quotes, even if you give it a zero, if you say the speech is absolutely not populist, this is something that happened also in another rubric, always give at least a couple of quotes on the pluralist side, you can show us the leader speaking about some very boring things and just say here is an example for the first box where their focus is on narrow particular issues for example, but always give quotes. And going to the overall comments, something like this, like three lines, this is way too short, so they should be longer, remember that these speeches we have read them before multiple times, so we know what they talk about, but especially if you're coding a speech that we have not read and if it's a language that we don't even understand, we need to know a bit more, we need to know what's the circumstances, what is the main topic of the speech, what are they talking about, what's their tone during that speech, and definitely give us more, who is the people, who are the elites, how is this common will identified, what is the kind of language that they're using, so build on top of those quotes and explain your grade to us, so these like not even two sentences is way too short for the overall comment, at least write a whole paragraph, and remember saying three sentences don't make a paragraph. So that was it, thanks for watching, there is a second set of speeches now for practicing on the module page, so these are another three speeches, and do them and see you next time.
AI Response to Step 9:
Speech 1: Tony Blair
Populist Elements in Blair’s speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World (Category 1):
No quotes:
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification:
Speech quotes:
The 1st May will be a genuinely historic day. The day that the division of Europe - the legacy of the Second World War and the Cold War - will be erased. The first day for new reunited Europe, for an EU of 25. It is a transformation which we can see for ourselves, whether in the high streets of Prague or Budapest, or in the conference rooms of Brussels. Europe has changed in a thousand ways, and for the better.
Category 3: Populist notion of the people:
No quotes
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil:
No quotes:
Category 5: Systemic Change:
No quotes:
Category 6: Anything goes attitude:
No quotes:
Non-Populist elements in Blair’s speech
Category 1: Pluralist vision of the world
Speech quotes:
'When the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development was set up in 1991, there was a unique opportunity to develop a new wider Europe, based on plural democracy and market-based economies'.
Category 2: Concrete interpretation of political issues
Speech quotes:
'Ten years ago, few of us would have envisaged the shape of Europe we now live in. But few could deny that Europe is today a more secure, stable and prosperous place'.
Category 3: Democracy as calculation of votes of individual citizens
No quotes
Category 4: Non-antagonistic view of opponents
Speech quotes:
The Bank must continue to search for ways to engage constructively in countries where problems exist over political reform. This is not about imposing a particular form of democracy from outside. Rather, it reflects the beliefs of the Bank's founders, confirmed in practice, that political reform and economic progress are inextricably linked.
Category 5: Incremental reform
Speech quotes:
'It will create a vast free trade market of 450 million consumers is an enormous achievement, with immense potential for the future. Increased trade, investment, and competition will benefit us all - in the new EU countries and the existing members alike'.
Category 6: Commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties
Speech quotes:
'Of course enlargement also bring new challenges. It will force the EU to review its processes, institutions and ideas. It means that the EU has new neighbors, with whom we must strengthen our relationships. We must adapt to reflect our expanded membership, as well as the changing world in which we live'.
Overall comment:
Firstly, there is no identification of a 'virtuous people,' nor of a corrupt elite opposed to them. Moreover, the centrality of the general will of the people is not recognized as an important element in the speech. On the contrary, the speech focuses on a specific topic: the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Additionally, the inclusion of new members in the European Union is highlighted as desirable, emphasizing pluralism and the market economy. Finally, the speech underscores the importance of democratic institutions, which are presented as fundamental for Europe's development. However, there are some populist elements of cosmic proportions, in a very soft way, in the speech, referring to May 1st as a historic day for Europe and the world.
Grade: 0.1
Speech 2: Evo Morales
Populist Elements in Morales’s speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World:
Speech quotes:
'We have lived for so many years through the confrontation of two cultures: the culture of life represented by the indigenous people, and the culture of death represented by West'.
When we the indigenous people–together with the workers and even the businessmen of our country–fight for life and justice, the State responds with its 'democratic rule of law.'
It must be said, compañeras and compañeros, that we must serve the social and popular movements rather than the transnational corporations.
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification:
Speech quotes:
'What happened these past days in Bolivia was a great revolt by those who have been oppressed for more than 500 years. The will of the people was imposed this September and October, and has begun to overcome the empire’s cannons'.
For us, October 17th is the beginning of a new phase of construction. Most importantly, we face the task of ending selfishness and individualism, and creating–from the rural campesino and indigenous communities to the urban slums–other forms of living, based on solidarity and mutual aid. We must think about how to redistribute the wealth that is concentrated among few hands. This is the great task we Bolivian people face after this great uprising.
Category 3 Populist notion of the people:
Speech quotes:
'I believe only in the power of the people. That was my experience in my own region, a single province–the importance of local power. And now, with all that has happened in Bolivia, I have seen the importance of the power of a whole people, of a whole nation'.
And I want to tell you, companeras and companeros, how we have built the consciousness of the Bolivian people from the bottom up. How quickly the Bolivian people have reacted, have said–as Subcomandate Marcos says–ya basta!, enough policies of hunger and misery.
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil:
Speech quotes:
'The cause of all these acts of bloodshed, and for the uprising of the Bolivian people, has a name: neoliberalism'.
'We have no other choice, compañeros and compañeras–if we want to defend humanity we must change systems and this means overthrowing US imperialism'.
When we speak of the 'defense of humanity,' as we do at this event, I think that this only happens by eliminating neoliberalism and imperialism. But I think that in this we are not so alone, because we see, every day that anti-imperialist thinking is spreading, especially after Bush’s bloody 'intervention' policy in Iraq.
Category 5: Systemic Change:
Speech quotes:
'With courage and defiance, we brought down Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada–the symbol of neoliberalism in our country–on October 17, the Bolivians’ day of dignity and identity. We began to bring down the symbol of corruption and the political mafia'.
'For us, October 17th is the beginning of a new phase of construction'.
Category 6: Anything goes attitude:
Speech quotes:
Above all, the 'rule of law' means the accusations that we, the Quechuas, Aymaras and Guaranties of Bolivia keep hearing from our governments: that we are narcos, that we are anarchists. This uprising of the Bolivian people has been not only about gas and hydrocarbons, but an intersection of many issues: discrimination, marginalization , and most importantly, the failure of neoliberalism.
Non-Populist element in Morales’s Discourse
Category 1: Pluralist vision of the world
No quotes
Category 2: Concrete interpretation of political issues
No quotes
Category 3: Democracy as calculation of votes of individual citizens
No quotes
Category 4: Non-antagonistic view of opponents
No quotes
Category 5: Incremental reform
No quotes
Category 6: Commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties
No quotes:
Overall comment:
Firstly, it is possible to identify the notion of the Bolivian people or the Indigenous people in opposition to North American imperialism and neoliberalism. Additionally, at a national scale, there is an antagonistic notion against the traditional political elites in Bolivia, the State and the 'rule of law', positioned against the Indigenous peoples, workers, and the poor. Consequently, the existence of antagonistic groups and a Manichean worldview is recognized. Secondly, the people are defined as the marginalized and the excluded, including various Indigenous peoples and workers. Thirdly, the will of the people is seen as the means to bring about a phase change that moves beyond neoliberalism and imperialism. Finally, there is the use of combative language opposing imperialism, with terms such as the 'culture of death' or the 'bloody' war in Iraq. There are no clear non-populist elements in the discourse.
Grade: 1.9
Speech 3: Stephen Harper
Populist Elements in Harper's speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World:
Speech quotes:
'Quebeckers, especially, are rightfully angry and outraged. This government lied to them! This government betrayed them!'
'Canada’s unity is not a reserve of money hidden in the Prime Minister’s office. Not about contracts given to some friends to capitalize on our flag. Not about advertising agencies that created and built Canada.'
'We must clean up corruption and lift the veils of secrecy that allow it to flourish. We must do nothing less than replace the culture of entitlement with the culture of accountability.'
'People vote, not corporations and unions. And only voters should be funding political parties.'
'When I become Prime Minister, those in government will have to serve the public interest, not their personal interests.'
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification:
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Category 3: Populist notion of the people:
Speech quotes:
'Government exists to serve the public.
• To serve ordinary Canadians
• To serve the people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules.'
'As a democratic society, we must hold accountable the party and the people who allowed this to happen under their watch. Creating a different way of doing government must begin by electing a different government. The time has passed for weak reforms, promises, excuses, crocodile tears'
'I want to be the Prime Minister of all Canadians. Of all those who work hard to give a better life to their children, to their communities and to their country'
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil:
Speech quotes:
'We will not only prosecute agencies and individuals; but, as the judge said, the Liberal Party of Canada is responsible as an institution. And the Liberal party will be prosecuted.'
'We’ve seen lobbyists making their pitch to Paul Martin and his ministers at $5000 per person cocktail parties. It has to stop. And it will.'
'Most Canadians don’t think that political office should be a guaranteed, permanent career. It should be a worthy form of limited public service. We all know people in our communities who have served for a term or two on city council, the provincial legislature, as a member of parliament or as one of any of their dedicated staff.'
'This means no more big interests lobbying the Prime Minister at behind closed doors $5,000 a ticket cocktail parties.'
'Second, we are going to crackdown on the revolving door between ministers’ offices, the senior public service, and the lobbying industry.'
Category 5: Systemic Change:
Speech quotes:
'When I become Prime Minister, those in government will have to serve the public interest, not their personal interests. We are going to change the way government works, not just change the colour on the letterhead'.
Category 6: Anything goes attitude:
No quotes
Non-Populist element in Harper’s Discourse
Category 1: Pluralist vision of the world
No quotes
Category 2: Concrete interpretation of political issues
No quotes
Category 3: Democracy as calculation of votes of individual citizens
No quotes
Category 4: Non-antagonistic view of opponents
No quotes
Category 5: Incremental reform
No quotes
Category 6: Commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties
No quotes:
Overall Comments:
Firstly, it is possible to identify a reference to the Canadian people, represented by ordinary, hardworking individuals who are portrayed as virtuous. Secondly, the speech identifies a clear enemy, which is corrupt and opposed to the common people. This corrupt elite is represented by the government, the Liberal Party and lobbyists. Finally, it is also possible to recognize the notion of the general will of the people, which is presented as the force that will bring Harper to power and enable the implementation of the 'Federal Accountability Act.' In this sense, the general will is seen as a means to cleanse the Canadian political system of corruption. However, despite this, no cosmic proportions or historic reification are recognized in the Manichaean division between the people and the government. Additionally, while there is denunciatory language, it does not possess a strongly bellicose tone. There are no clear non-populist elements, however, the intensity of the populist elements are mild.
Grade: 1.3
Instructor:
STEP 10 - Code three more speechesThe text below includes three speeches we would like you to code and compare to our coding. The speeches are from George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. Specifically, we would like you to identify the populism score you would give each one of these speeches and the reasons why so that you can compare it to our scores and our reasons and make adjustments accordingly. Remember the adjustments made in the previous steps as you work through these new speeches. The text you need to consider is contained in this: {[( text to be considered )]}
{[(
Speech 1 (Barack Obama):
[downloaded September 3, 2013 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address ]
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2010
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address
U.S. Capitol
9:11 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.
Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.
You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, 'We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged.'
It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.) And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.
It begins with our economy.
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)
But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -– I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.
To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)
Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)
I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)
As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.
There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.
But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)
Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.
We should start where most new jobs do –- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit -– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)
Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.
Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)
We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)
Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)
But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.
We can't afford another so-called economic 'expansion' like the one from the last decade –- what some call the 'lost decade' -– where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.
From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.
For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)
You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)
As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.
Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.
We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)
Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)
I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)
Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)
We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)
Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)
Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.
When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)
To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)
And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -– (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.
Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment –- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.
This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)
Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.
After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.
And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)
Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, 'What's in it for me?'
But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)
So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.
Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)
Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.
At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)
Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.
I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)
We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.
Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.) Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand –- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)
That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.
But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)
Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.
But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)
Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.
So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.
To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)
This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait. (Laughter.)
Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)
That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.
And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.
As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)
Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world –- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year. (Applause.) That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)
Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)
Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)
That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.
As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)
Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)
We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)
In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.
Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -– our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government –- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.
No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.
I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it.
But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.
Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.
But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.
Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.
It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, 'None of us,' he said, '…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail.'
It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, 'We are strong. We are resilient. We are American.'
It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.
And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of 'U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!' when another life was saved.
The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END 10:20 P.M. EST
Speech 2 (George W Bush):
ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS September 20, 2001 THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans: In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people. We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground -- passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. (Applause.) We have seen the state of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers -- in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own. My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union -- and it is strong. (Applause.) Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. (Applause.) I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched on the evening of the tragedy to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing 'God Bless America.' And you did more than sing; you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military. Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership and for your service to our country. (Applause.) And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our National Anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate. We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America. Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. (Applause.) Once again, we are joined together in a great cause -- so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity of purpose with America. Thank you for coming, friend. (Applause.) On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole. Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world -- and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere. The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader -- a person named Osama bin Laden -- are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized -- many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate. I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.) Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.) Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way. We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. (Applause.) Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network. This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice: We are not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security. These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me -- the Office of Homeland Security. And tonight I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend -- Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge. (Applause.) He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism, and respond to any attacks that may come. These measures are essential. But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. (Applause.) Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight, a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud. (Applause.) This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom. We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all. The civilized world is rallying to America's side. They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments. And you know what -- we're not going to allow it. (Applause.) Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat. I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith. (Applause.) I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it. I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle. I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today. (Applause.) And, finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform, and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow, and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead. Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you will do. And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will do together. Tonight, we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking. We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying, with direct assistance during this emergency. (Applause.) We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. (Applause.) We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act, and find them before they strike. (Applause.) We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy, and put our people back to work. Tonight we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers: Governor George Pataki, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. (Applause.) As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress, and these two leaders, to show the world that we will rebuild New York City. (Applause.) After all that has just passed -- all the lives taken, and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them -- it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear. Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead, and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world. (Applause.) Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. (Applause.) It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever. And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. (Applause.) I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.) Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)
Speech 3 (Sarah Palin):
CNN NEWSROOM
Sarah Palin Speaks at Tea Party Convention
Aired February 6, 2010 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Don Lemon here at the CNN world headquarters in Atlanta.
Moments from now, former Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, will address a national tea party convention in Nashville, Tennessee. You are looking at live pictures from the room. She should step up to the podium at any moment. We are being told by our people on the ground that Sarah Palin is in the room. And she's going to be introduced in a little bit by Andrew Bipart (ph) in that room.
We are going to get a preview of what is going on as we take a look at these pictures. You won't miss a moment of the speech.
We want to go to Mary Snow and Juan Carlos Lopez with CNN in Espanol. They're standing by for us in Nashville tonight.
Guys, we're hearing that Sarah Palin is in the room. People are anticipating her speech.
I'll start with you, Mary. These people who are gathering in this room tonight, if you have been able to attend any of the events, this one will probably be the most well attended event of this convention.
MARY SNOW, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Absolutely, Don. There are about 1,100 people in that room, that's 500 more than attended this conversation over the last couple of days. Some people told me a few days ago, they came to this convention because of Sarah Palin. They wanted to hear her speak tonight.
In terms of what they want to hear from her, is how the tea party moves forward. Don, we have already heard from Sarah Palin this week. She wrote an op-ed for 'USA Today' pointing out that she is going to be participating in other tea party events, the Tea Party Express and a Boston rally moving forward. She said in the op-ed, the people here, the movement is the soul of this movement, and that she shares the same principles, so aligning herself with the people gathered here tonight.
LEMON: I want to ask Juan Carlos about Hispanics, when it comes to their support of tea parties. We have been talking about a lot of Independent voters. We know there has been a lot of support among Latinos, Hispanics for Republicans in the past, but then immigration issues may have changed that. What about now with this tea party movement and at the tea party convention? What is the presence there, if any?
JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's -- I just found one person who spoke Spanish. Someone who came from Utah. She was of Cuban descent.
I think it is important to clear out that, first of all, this isn't a party. This isn't a real convention. This is a slice of the tea party movement. So maybe outside in the states you will see Hispanics joining the tea party people and gather with the tea party people, but not here. We didn't see a big presentation of minorities discussing issues. Immigration was discussed. It was presented in a different tone. It was presented as a problem of legal and illegal issues. So a lot of interesting arguments but obviously not a party, not a big presence of minorities here.
LEMON: Listen, I just to ask you guys...
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Go ahead, Mary. Sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. Go ahead.
SNOW: Just to add to what Juan was saying, in terms of age groups too, we spoke to one couple in their 30s and they felt they were among the youngest attending this convention. Most of the people we've been seeing are middle aged and older.
LEMON: OK.
Listen, I'm going to tell our viewers, just to remind them, any minute now Sarah Palin is going to step up to the podium and give the keynote speech at the tea party convention in Nashville, Tennessee. Two of our finest are on the ground there, Mary Snow, part of the best political team on television, as were as Juan Carlos, with CNN en Espanol. Again, Sarah Palin speaking at any moment.
Often, I'm with you guys reporting on stories. And there are always moments that really kind of catch me. Since you have been there reporting on this, Mary, have you noticed anything -- is there anything that stands out to you about the crowd, about the convention, about the circumstances surrounding it?
SNOW: Yes. The one thing that has really struck me is the fact the people who came here said they weren't politically active up until now. They came here to learn. This is a very different tone from some of the protests and rallies we've seen over the past year. However, while there were all these...
LEMON: Mary? Mary, I'm going to have to cut you off.
Sarah Palin is taking the stage in Nashville. She is about to give the keynote address at this dinner tonight in Nashville.
Let's listen in, everyone.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS) SARAH PALIN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you very much. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you so much. God bless you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you so much.
(APPLAUSE)
I am so proud to be an American.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you so much for being here tonight.
(APPLAUSE)
Do you love your freedom? If you love your freedom, think of it. Any of you here serving in uniform, past or present, raise your hand? We are going to thank you for our freedom. God bless you guys. We salute you. We honor you. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
I am so proud to be American. Thank you. Gosh. Thank you. Happy birthday, Ronald Reagan.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, a special hello to the C-SPAN viewers. You may not be welcome in those health care negotiations but you have an invitation to the tea party.
(APPLAUSE)
Very good to be here in Tennessee, the volunteer state. It's the home of good country music and good southern barbecue, and great to be at the tea party convention. I guess down here that's some southern sweet tea. In Alaska, we have a smaller version of tea party up there. And we call it iced tea.
(LAUGHTER)
And I am a big supporter of this movement. I believe in this movement. Got lots of friends and family in the lower 48 attending these events across the country, and just knowing that this is the movement, and America is ready for another revolution, and you are a part of this.
(APPLAUSE)
I look forward to attending more tea party events in the near future. It is so inspiring to see real people, not politicos --
(LAUGHTER)
-- not inside the beltway professionals come out and stand up and speak out for commonsense, conservative principles.
And today, I want to start off with a special shout out to America's newest Senator. Thanks to you, Scott Brown.
(APPLAUSE)
Now in many ways Scott Brown represents what this beautiful movement is all about. He was just a guy with a truck and a passion to serve our country. He looked around and he saw that things weren't quite right in Washington, so he stood up and he decided he was going do his part to put our government back on the side of the people. And it took guts and it took a lot of hard work, but with grassroots support, Scott Brown carried the day. It has been so interesting now to watch the aftermath of the Massachusetts shout-out revolution.
The White House blames the candidate. Their candidate. And Nancy Pelosi, she blamed the Senate Democrats. And Rahm Emanuel, he criticized a pollster.
(LAUGHTER)
And yet again, President Obama found some way to make this all about George Bush.
(LAUGHTER)
You know considering the reason conservative elections sweep, it is time to stop that they blaming everyone else. When you are zero for three, you better stop lecturing and start listening.
(APPLAUSE)
The only place that the left hasn't placed the blame is on their agenda. So some advice for our friends on that side of the aisle. That's where you've got to look because that's what got you into this mess. The Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda will leave us less secure, more in debt and under the thumb of big government. That is out of touch and is out of date. And if Scott Brown is any indication, it is running out of time.
(LAUGHTER)
Because from Virginia to New Jersey to Massachusetts, voters are sending a message up and down the east coast, and in good places like Nevada and Connecticut and Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, they've got the liberal left, that establishment running scared.
The bottom line is this. It's been a year now. They own this now. and voters are going to hold them accountable. Because out here in the cities and in the towns across this great country we know that we've got some big problems to solve. We've gotten tired now of looking backward. We want to look forward and, from here, my friends, the future, it looks really good. It looks really good. Because if there is hope in Massachusetts, there's hope everywhere.
(LAUGHTER)
Brown's victory, it's exciting and it's a sign of more good things to come. A lot of great common-sense conservative candidates are going to put it all on the line in 2010. This year, there are going to be tough primaries. And I think that's good. Competition in these primaries is good. Competition makes us work harder and be more efficient and produce more. I hope you will get out there and work hard for the candidates who reflect your values, your priorities, because despite what the pundits want you to think, contested primaries aren't civil war. They're democracy at work and that's beautiful.
(APPLAUSE)
I was the product of a competitive primary running for governor. I faced five guys in the party and we put our ideas and our experience out there on the table for debate. And then we allowed, of course, the voters to decide. That is a healthy process. And it gives Americans the kind of leadership that they want and they deserve. And so in 2010, I tip my hat to anyone with the courage to throw theirs in the ring and may the best ideas and candidates win.
But while I hope you give the candidates that you choose your best effort, please understand they're human. There's no perfect candidate. And they're going to disappoint occasionally. And when they do, let them know, but don't get discouraged and sit it out, because the stakes are too high. The stakes are too high right now, and your voice is too important, so work hard for these candidates but put your faith in ideas.
And in that spirit, I caution against allowing this movement to be defined by any one leader or politician. The tea party movement is not a top-down operation. It's a ground-up call to action that is forcing both parties to change the way they're doing business, and that's beautiful.
(LAUGHTER)
This is about the people. This is about the people. And it's bigger than any king or queen of a tea party. And it's a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.
(LAUGHTER)
The soul of this movement is the people, everyday Americans, who grow our food and run our small businesses, who teach our kids and fight our wars. They're folks in small towns and cities across this great nation who saw what was happening and they saw and were concerned and they got involved. Like you, they go to town hall meetings and they write op-eds. They run for local office. You all have the courage to stand up and speak out. You have a vision for the future, one that values conservative principles and commonsense solutions. And if that sounds like you, then you probably, too, are feeling a bit discouraged by what you see in Washington, D.C.
Now in recent weeks, many of us have grown even more uneasy about our administration's approach to national security, the most important role ascribed to our federal government.
(APPLAUSE)
Let me say, too, it's not politicizing our security to discuss our concerns because Americans deserve to know the truth about the threats that we face and what the administration is or isn't doing about them. So let's talk about them. New terms used like 'overseas contingency operation' instead of the word 'war.' That reflects a world view that is out of touch with the enemy that we face. We can't spin our way out of this threat. It is one thing to call a pay raise a job created or saved. It is quite another to call the devastation that a homicide bomber can inflict a 'manmade disaster.' I just say, come on, Washington, if no where else, national security, that is one place where you've got to call it like it is.
(APPLAUSE)
And in that spirit, in that spirit, we should acknowledge that, on Christmas day, the system did not work. Abdulmutallab passed through airport security with a bomb. and he boarded a flight hell bent on killing innocent passengers. This terrorist trained in Yemen with al Qaeda. His American visa was not revoked until after he tried to kill hundreds of passengers. On Christmas day, the only thing that stopped this terrorist is blind luck and brave passengers. It was a Christmas miracle. And that is not the way that the system is supposed to work.
(APPLAUSE)
What followed was equally disturbing after he was captured. He was questioned for only 50 minutes. We have a choice in how to do this. The choice was only question him for 50 minutes and then read his Miranda rights. The administration says then there are no downsides or upsides to treating terrorists like civilian criminal defendants. But a lot of us would beg to differ. For example, there are questions we would have liked this foreign terrorist to answer before he lawyered up and invoked our U.S. constitutional right to remain silent.
(APPLAUSE)
Our U.S. constitutional rights.
(APPLAUSE)
Our rights that you, sir, fought and were willing to die for to protect in our Constitution.
(APPLAUSE)
The rights that my son, as an infantryman in the United States Army, is willing to die for. The protections provided, thanks to you, sir, we're going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution and our country. This makes no sense because we have a choice in how we're going to deal with the terrorists. We don't have to go down that road. There are questions that we would have liked answered before he lawyered up, like where exactly were you trained and by whom. You are bragging about all these other terrorists just like you, who are they? When and where will they try to strike next?
The events surrounding the Christmas day plot reflect the kind of thinking that led to September 11th. The threat then, as the 'USS Cole' was attacked, our embassies were attacked, it was treated like an international crime spree not like an act of war. We are seeing that mindset again settle into Washington again. That scares me for my children, for your children. Treating this as a mere law enforcement matter places our country at great risks because that is not how radical Islamic extremists look at this. They know we are at war. To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.
(APPLAUSE)
It's that same kind of misguided thinking that is seen throughout the administration's foreign policy decisions. Our president spent a year reaching out to hostile regimes, writing personal letters to dangerous dictators and apologizing for America, and what do we have to show for that? Here's what we have to show. North Korea tested nuclear weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles. Israel, a friend and critical ally, now questions the strength of our support. Plans for a missile defense system in Europe, they've been scrapped. Relations with China and Russia are no better. and relations with Japan, that key Asian ally, they are in the worst shape in years. And around the world, people who are seeking freedom from oppressive regimes wonder if Alaska is still that beacon of hope for their cause. The administration cut support for democracy programs. And where the president has not been clear, I ask where is his clear and where his strong voice of support for the Iranians who are risking all in their opposition to Ahmadinejad?
(APPLAUSE)
Just that short list, that short list. And you know, it is no wonder that our president only spent 9 percent of his State of the Union address discussing national security, foreign policy, because there aren't a lot of victories he could talk about that night. And that is a short list. There are so many challenges in front of us. And it can seem overwhelming. But despite these challenges, we have hope that we can move things in the right direction but it is going to require the administration to change course. We need a foreign policy that distinguishes America's friends from her enemies and recognizes the true nature of the threats that we face.
(APPLAUSE) We need a strong national defense. I think you would agree with me. As Reagan used to talk about that peace through strength. In that respect, I applaud the president for following at least a part of the recommendations made by our commanders on the ground to send in some more reinforcements to Afghanistan. Now, though, he, we, must spend less time courting our adversaries and working with our allies. And we must build coalitions capable of confronting dangerous regimes like Iran and North Korea. It is time for more than just tough talk. I'm just like you, probably so tired of hearing the talk, talk, talk.
(APPLAUSE)
Tired of hearing the talk.
(APPLAUSE)
It's time for some tough actions, like sanctions on Iran. And in places in the world where people are struggling and oppressed and they're fighting for freedom, America must stand with them. We need a clear foreign policy that stands with the people and for democracy, one that reflects both our values and our interests. And it is in our best interest because democracies, they don't go to war with each other. They can settle their differences peacefully.
The lesson of the last year is this. Foreign policy can't be managed through the politics of personality. And our president would do well to take note of an observation John F. Kennedy made once he was in office, that all of the world's problems aren't his predecessor's fault.
(APPLAUSE)
The problems that we face in the real world require real solutions and we'd better get to it because the risks that they pose are great and they're grave. However, as Barry Goldwater said, we can be conquered by bombs, but we can also be conquered by neglect, by ignoring our Constitution and disregarding the principles of limited government. And in the past year, his words ring true. Washington has now replaced private irresponsibility with public irresponsibility. The list of companies and industries that the government is crowding out and bailing out and taking over, it continues to grow. First, it was the banks, mortgage companies, financial institutions, then automakers. Soon, if they had their way, health care, student loans. Today, in the words of Congressman Paul Ryan, the $700 billion TARP has morphed into crony capitalism at its worse. It is becoming a slush fund for the Treasury Department's favorite big players, just as we had been warned about. While people on main street look for jobs, people on Wall Street, they're collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses. Among the top 17 companies that received your bailout money, 92 percent of the senior officers and directors, they still have their good jobs. And everyday Americans are wondering, where are the consequences for them helping to get us into this worst economic situation since the great depression? Where are the consequences?
(APPLAUSE) When Washington passed a $787 billion stimulus bill, we were nervous because they just spent $700 billion to bailout Wall Street. On the state level, as a governor, we knew a lot of that money came with fat strings attached. The federal government was going to have more control over our states. They were going to disrespect the Tenth Amendment of our Constitution by essentially bribing with us. Take this federal money and then we going to be able to mandate a few more things on you though. I joined with other conservative governors around the nation in rejecting some of those dollars. Legislators --
(APPLAUSE)
Turned out to be, though, nothing to applaud, because legislators then were threatening lawsuits if governors didn't take the money. And I vetoed some of the funds that I knew we couldn't maintain the programs that we were going to pay for with these borrowed, printed up, invented dollars out of nowhere, but lawsuits were threatened. Even in Alaska, in a Republican-controlled legislature, my veto was overridden, and the money poured into those states. And I believe we will see this play out in our states. The federal government will have taken more control over the people who live in our states.
Now I understand wanting to believe that this is all free money and for some, I guess, it is tough to tell people 'no' in tough times. Plus, remember our administration promise that it would be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Remember? Remember, Vice President Biden? He was put in charge of a tough, unprecedented oversight effort. That's how it was introduced. You know why? Because nobody messes with Joe.
(LAUGHTER)
Now, this was all part of that hope and change and transparency. And now a year later, I got to ask the supporters of all that, how is that hopey-changey stuff working out for you?
(LAUGHTER)
See, I tried to look into that transparency thing but Joe's meetings with the transparency and accountability board, it was closed to the public.
(LAUGHTER)
Yes. They held a transparency meeting behind closed doors.
(LAUGHTER)
So I'm not sure if anybody's messing with Joe. But here is what I do know. A lot of that stimulus cash, it ended up in some pretty odd places, including districts that didn't even exist.
(LAUGHTER)
And programs that really don't have a whole lot to do with stimulating the economy. Nearly $6 million was given to a Democrat pollster, who had already made millions during the Democrats' presidential primary. Nearly $10 million was spent to update the stimulus web site. And one state even spent a million bucks to put up signs that advertised they were spending the federal stimulus projects or, as someone put it, this was a $1 million effort to tell you it is spending your money.
(LAUGHTER)
And it didn't create a single job.
Those uses of stimulus funds don't sound targeted and they don't sound timely as we were promised. They just sound wasteful and, in the case of those signs, kind of ridiculous. All of that stimulus. I don't know about you but seeing those checks written for pet projects of congressmen and those in the White House, did you feel very stimulated?
(LAUGHTER)
And then it turns out that Washington got the price tag wrong. All of these projects and programs, they cost tens and tens of billions more than we were told. It is now closer to $860 billion. Add this to the fact that the White House can't even tell us how many jobs were actually created. Depending on who you ask, it is anywhere from thousands to two million.
But one number we are sure of is the unemployment number. That is 9.7, which is well above the 8 percent mark that we were promised our stimulus package would go to avoid. And unemployment now is -- underemployment now is 16.5 percent. You have got all these people who have just kind of given up right now. and they are not even enrolling in some of these programs. Tough to count them.
Folks, I won't go into all of it tonight, but the list of broken promises is long. Candidate Obama pledged to end closed-door, sweetheart deals and no-bit contracts once and for all, but just last month his administration awarded a $25 million no-bid contract to a Democrat donor? Is that hope? Nope. It's not hope.
(LAUGHTER)
That's the same old, same old in Washington, D.C. And instead of changing the way Washington does business, we got the cornhusker kickback and the Louisiana Purchase and millions of tax breaks for union boss' desires. The promised ban on lobbyist in this new administration, he handed out waivers left and right, and there are more than 40 former lobbyists who now work at the top levels in this administration. And these days, most members of Congress, they don't get to read the bill before they have to vote on it, much less the pledged that a bill wouldn't be signed into law before we all had five days to review it online.
So, see, it's easy to understand why Americans are shaking their heads when Washington has broken trust with the people that these politicians are to be serving. We're drowning in national debt and many of us have had enough. Now the foundational principles in all of this, it's easy to understand. It really is even I though I think D.C. would just love for us to believe that this is all way over our heads. Somebody in Tennessee, somebody up there in Alaska, she'll never understand what we are talking about here in D.C. No, this is all pretty simple stuff. When our families, when our small businesses, we start running our finances in to the red, what do we do? We tighten our belts and we cut back budgets. That is what we teach our children, to live within our means. That is what Todd and I do when we have to make payroll, buy new equipment for our commercial fishing business. We have to plan for the future, meet a budget.
But in Washington, why is it just the opposite of that? This week, they unveiled a record busting, mind boggling $3.8 trillion federal budget and they keep borrowing and they keep printing these dollars and they keep making us more and more beholden to foreign countries and they keep making us take these steps towards insolvency. Now what they are doing in proposing these big new programs with giant price tags, they're sticking our kids with the bill. And that is immoral. That is generational theft. We are stealing the opportunities from our children.
And freedom lovers around this country need to be aware this makes us more beholden to other countries, it makes us less secure. It makes us less free and that should tick us off. So, folks, with all these serious challenges ahead, we've got private-sector job creation that has got to take place and economic woes and health care, the war on terror.
But as the saying goes, if you can't ride two horses at once, you shouldn't be in the circus. So here's some advice for those in D.C. who want to shine in the greatest show on earth. Too often when big government and big business get together and cronyism sets in, well, it benefits insiders not everyday Americans. The administration and Congress should do what we did up there in Alaska when the good old boys started making back room deals that were benefiting big oil and not the citizens of the state. And the citizens of the state then, Alaskans, we got together and we put government back on the side of the people. And a lot of the big wigs, they started getting in trouble and some of the big wigs ended up going to jail over their back room deals.
Our government needs to adopt a pro-market agenda that doesn't pick winners and losers but it invites competition and it levels the playing field for everyone. Washington has got to across the board, lower taxes for small businesses so that our mom and pops can reinvest and hire people so that our businesses can thrive. They should support competition, support innovation, reward hard work.
And they should do all that they can to make sure that the game is fair without the undo corrupt influence. And then they need to get government out of the way. If they would do this -- if they would do this, our economy, it would roar back to life and for instance on health care, we need bipartisan solutions to help families not increase taxes. Remember that red reset button that America through Secretary Clinton, she gave to Putin. Remember that? I think we should ask for that back and hand it instead to Congress. And say, no, start all over on this health care scheme and pass meaningful, market-based reforms that incorporate some simple steps that have broad support. The best ideas, not back room deals but insurance purchases across state lines and the tort reform that we've talked about.
Those things that are common sense steps towards reform that the White House and leaders on the Democrats' side of the aisle in Congress, they don't want to consider. So it makes you wonder, what truly is their motivation? What is their intention if they won't consider even these common sense, broad based support ideas that would work? And to create jobs. Washington should jump start energy projects. I said it during the campaign and I'll say it now, we need an all of the above approach to energy policy. That means proven conventional resource development and support for nuclear power. And I was thankful that the president at least mentioned nuclear power in his State of the Union.
But, again, we need more than words. We need a plan to turn that goal into a reality and that way we can pave the way for projects that will create jobs, those are real job creators and deliver carbon free energy. And while we're at it, let's expedite the regulatory and permitting and legal processes for on and offshore drilling.
Instead of paying billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars that now are being sent to foreign regimes, we should be drilling here and drilling now instead of relying on them to develop their resources for us. So what we've got to do is axe that plan for cap-and-tax, that policy is going to kill jobs and it's going to pass the burden of paying for it onto our working families.
And finally, if we are going to get serious about fiscal restraint, then we've got to make Washington start walking the walk. After putting us on a track to quadruple the deficit, the proposed spending freeze, maybe it is a start, but it's certainly not enough. As Senator John Thune said, it's like putting a Band-Aid on a self- inflicted gunshot wound.
We need to go further. Cut spending. Don't just simply slow down a spending spree and we've got to axe the plans for a second stimulus when the first hasn't even been measured for any success yet. Kill the plans for the second stimulus and be aware that now that second stimulus is being referred to as a jobs bill. Now these aren't the only ways to rein in spending, and alone, they're not going to be enough, not enough to tackle the insane debt and the deficits that we face. But they are a good way to start and to show that we're serious about getting our financial house in order.
Now like a lot of you, perhaps, I have spent the last year thinking about how to best serve. How can I help our country? How can I make sure that I, that you, that we're in a position of nobody being able to succeed. When they try to tell us to sit down and shut up, how can we best serve? In 2008, I had the honor really of a lifetime, the honor of a lifetime, running alongside John McCain. I look at him as an American hero. And nearly 60 million Americans voted for us. They cast their ballot for the things that we are talking about tonight. Lower taxes, smaller government, transparency, energy independence and strong national security. And while no, our votes did not carry the day, it was still a call to serve our country. Those voters wanted us to keep on fighting and take the gloves off and they wanted common sense conservative solutions and they wanted us to keep on debating. And each of us who is here today, we're living proof that you don't need an office or a title to make a difference and you don't need a proclaimed leader as if we are all just a bunch of sheep and we're looking for a leader to progress this movement.
That is what we are fighting for. It is what we are fighting about. It is what we believe in and that's what this movement is all about. When people are willing to meet halfway and stand up for common sense solutions and values, then we want to work with them. And in that spirit, I applaud Independents and Democrats like Bart Stupak who stood up to tough partisan pressure and he wanted to protect the sanctity of life and the rights of the soon to be born. I applaud him for that.
When we can work together, we will. But when the work of Washington violates our consciences and when the work and effort in Washington, D.C., violate our Constitution, then we will stand up and we will be counted. Because we are the loyal opposition. And we have a vision for the future of our country, too, and it is a vision anchored in time tested truths.
That the government that governs least, governs best. And that the Constitution provides the best road map towards a more perfect union. And that only limited government can expand prosperity and opportunity for all and that freedom is a God given right and it is worth fighting for. God bless you. And that America's finest, our men and women in uniform, are a force for good throughout the world and that is nothing to apologize for.
These are enduring truths and these enduring truths have been passed down from Washington to Lincoln to Reagan and now to you. But while this movement, our roots there, in our spirit, too, they are historic. The current form of this movement is fresh and it's young and it's fragile. We are now the keepers of an honorable tradition of conservative values and good works. And we must never forget that it is a sacred trust to carry these ideas forward. It demands civility and it requires decent constructive issue-oriented debate.
Opponents of this message, they are seeking to marginalize this movement. They want to paint us as ideologically extreme and the counterpoint to liberal intolerance and outrageous conspiracy theorists aimed at our own government and unethical shameless tactics like considering a candidate's children fair game.
But unlike the elitists who denounce this movement, they just don't want to hear the message. I've traveled across this great country and I've talked to the patriotic men and women who make up the Tea Party movement, and they are good and kind and selfless and they are deeply concerned about our country. And today I ask only this, let's make this movement a tribute to their good example and make it worthy of their hard work and their support.
Do not let us have our heads turned from the important work before us and do not give others an excuse to be able to turn their eyes from this. Let us not get bogged down in the small squabbles. Let us get caught up in the big ideas. To do so would be a fitting tribute to Ronald Reagan, especially tonight, as he would have turned 99. No longer with us. His spirit lives on and his American dream endures. He knew the best of our country is not all gathered in Washington, D.C. It is here in our communities where families live and children learn and children with special needs are welcomed in this world and embraced. And thank you for that.
The best of America can be found in places where patriots are brave enough and free enough to be able to stand up and speak up and where small businesses grow our economy one job at a time and folks like Reagan, we know that America is still that shining city on a hill. I do believe that God shed his grace on thee. We know that our best days are yet to come. Tea Party nation, we know that there is nothing wrong with America that together we can't fix as Americans.
So from the bottom of my heart and speaking on behalf of millions and millions and millions of Americans who want to encourage this movement, this movement is about the people. Who can argue of a movement that is about the people and for the people? Remember, all political power is inherent in the people and government is supposed to be working for the people. That is what this movement is about.
From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for being part of the solution. God bless you, Tea Partiers and God bless the USA. Thank you. God bless you.
(END OF COVERAGE)
LEMON: You're just listening to Sarah Palin speaking at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, really making some very strong points, and some strong words for the administration and for the president. She is supposed to take questions. And we are going to carry that Q & A part of it live.
But there you see Sarah Palin there on the stage, Opryland Hotel, Gaylord Opryland Hotel. And she again talked about the administration, talked about the current administration, I should say, talked about what the Tea Party movement is all about, getting thunderous applause especially towards the end. It appears that she may have gotten a little teary eyed when talking about her special needs child saying that she likes to be part of a group that welcomes a special needs child into the world, welcomes and accepts. Sarah Palin taking questions now.
We are going to go back there live and listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
QUESTION: A few weeks ago, we worked out something where there would be a brief question and answer session. And we asked some folks on Tea Party Nation that we could ask Governor Palin tonight. And she has graciously agreed to answer a few questions. So we're going to take a few minutes and ask and answer a few questions.
PALIN: Thank you.
QUESTION: By the way, is this your first time in Nashville?
PALIN: It is. I haven't even been here for a concert yet which Piper, I brought Piper with me, and she's just going crazy wanting to get out there and see if she can go out and find Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift. My first time here though.
QUESTION: Well, I hate to tell her this, Miley Cyrus lives not too far from where we are. So I'm sorry we couldn't work that out for you. Next time. All right, a few questions real quick. And again, these have been submitted by folks on Tea Party Nation. First of all, how do you see the future of the Tea Party movement? Do you see this Tea Party movement becoming a part of the Republican Party or do you see it becoming a third Independent party?
PALIN: The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible because this is the future of our country. The Tea Party movement is the future of politics and as I said before, this is a beautiful movement because it is shaping the way politics are conducted. You've got really both party machines running scared because they are not knowing what are we going to do if we don't have Tea Party support? They know that they won't succeed.
QUESTION: Outstanding. At the convention here, we have at least three people I know who are running for Congress. So let me ask you this, if you had the chance to interview some of these people, what questions would you ask them to determine whether or not you would support them?
PALIN: I'm going to ask them if they think that we're taxed enough already. And if they say yes, I'm going to say well what are you going to do about it. Because really, we don't want to just hear the talk. We want to know that they walk the walk, either via a record that perhaps they can prove to us in other elected office they have had. But I want to encourage people who don't have any elected office experience, not some kind of fat elite resume in their back pocket. I want the fresh folks to come out and run for office and start changing the world via these state and local and national offices.
But if they feel that they've been taxed enough already and that they make us a commitment that they are going to do something about it and if they just believe in that constitutional limited government that the federal government has got to start abiding by, a lot of the things that perhaps the details, the things on the periphery that perhaps I wouldn't agree with very single aspect of their agenda that they would like to implement, they have got the basics down, I think it would be wise for us to be supportive. QUESTION: I'm going to have to learn to wait to let people applaud. Yeah! It goes without saying, the in game for the Tea Party movement for 2010 is a conservative House and a conservative Senate, or as I had the chance to tell some people earlier today, next year at this time we need to see the title former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Senator Harry Reid.
PALIN: We will.
QUESTION: When we are successful and we have a conservative House and a conservative Senate, as soon as that happens, what do you think are the top three things that have got to be done?
PALIN: We've got to rein in the spending, obviously, and not raise it extremely high budgets and then say, OK, we are going to freeze a couple programs here. That doesn't do us any good really. We've got to start reining in the spending. We have got to jump start these energy projects that, again, we have heard so much about because it is ridiculous that we have just sitting warehoused under God's green earth here in the United States of America, rich resources, oil, and gas, and our coil and all of the conventional resources. We have got to actually walk that walk, to allow them to come to development.
And then, I think, it is kind of tougher to -- kind of tougher to put our arms around, but allowing America's spirit to rise again by not being afraid -- not being afraid to kind of go back to some of our roots as a God-fearing nation where we are not afraid to say, especially in times of potential trouble in the future here, we are not afraid to say, you know, we don't have all the answers as fallible men and women.
So it would be wise of us to start seeking some divine intervention again in this country so that we can be safe and secure and prosperous again. To have people involved in government who aren't afraid to go that route, not so afraid of the political correctness that, you know, they have to be afraid of what the media would say about them if they were to proclaim their reliance on our creator.
QUESTION: That's right.
QUESTION: Amen. Now, we know conservatives are never harassed in the media, so the following is clearly a hypothetical question. In the instance that there were ever to be a conservative who were harassed in the media, what would you say to them?
PALIN: Plow right on through it. Really, at the end of the day, who cares what an irrelevant, mainstream media is going to say about you? Who cares? The political hot shots that they want to take at you for standing up and saying what you believe in and proclaiming the patriotic love that you have for country and a lot of those in the mainstream media, they don't want to hear that. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what they have to say about you because I really believe that there are more of us than they want us to believe. That should empower us, that should strengthen us and plow right on through it, please. QUESTION: We've mentioned today is Ronald Reagan's -- or would have been his 99th birthday, the 99th anniversary of his birth. And one of the amazing things Ronald Reagan did when he was in the White House, he created this great majority that was based not on Republicans and Democrats, but he had a conservative majority in Congress. What do you think we can do to get conservative Democrats, conservative libertarians, conservative Independents, on board with the Tea Party movement so that in 2011 when a new Congress and a new Senate is sworn in, it's conservative?
PALIN: Hey, they are already peeking in. It is pretty cool to see some of the blue dog Democrats peeking under the tent, you know, and finding out, what is this movement all about and holy geez, I'm scared if I'm not a part of this.
And the nice thing about the Tea Party movement, it's not just a bunch of hard core registered Republicans. I'll make a confession right now. My husband, he's not a registered Republican. He's much too independent, but probably more conservative than I am, even, but I think he is kind of an example of so many other American who don't choose to be a part of a registered party because they see the problems within the machine.
They see some of the idiosyncrasies of the personalities who control the political machines and they don't want to waste time dealing with that, so they are independent, but they are believers in the movement and I think you're going to see a whole lot of the Independents and more conservative Democrats finally be empowered and emboldened and say, yes, I'll come out of the closet now and I'll let them know I believe in it too.
Now, as I talk about Todd explaining that he's not a registered Republican, I guess I need to apologize to the Republican Party because some people have said, you're a pretty weak Republican spokesperson that if you can't even get your own husband to convert, but he's much too independent.
QUESTION: Don't feel bad, my wife left the Republican Party, too. We hear about the Obama plan. What's the Palin plan?
PALIN: The Palin plan is quite simple and I kind of get a kick out of it. I think it probably drives some of the elitists crazy that I don't get angry out about it, I get a kick out of it when they say that I'm too simple minded and too plain spoken, but my plan is quite simple and that is to support those who understand the foundation of our country.
When it comes to the economy, it is free market principles that reward hard work and personal responsibility. And when it comes to national security, as I ratchet down the message on national security, it's easy to just kind of sum it up by repeating Ronald Reagan when he talked about the Cold War. And we can apply this now to our war on terrorism, you know. Bottom line, we win, they lose. We do all that we can to win.
QUESTION: For you, national security is a little more of a personal issue. You have a son in the army. How is he doing?
PALIN: He's doing awesome. And I'm so proud of him and the decision that he has made along with all the many, many men and women in uniform who -- I look at, especially these young men and women and think, they could be doing anything or nothing else in our world, and they have chosen to serve something greater than self. They are not just biting time or wasting time in their young years of their lives. They get it. They understand the need to protect our security and to really be willing to die for our freedom. And when I talk about my son, and he doesn't like me to talk about him, as a matter of fact, he'll chew me out if he hears about this, but --
QUESTION: He may be watching.
PALIN: I don't think he's ever turned on C-SPAN in his entire young life. But I'm proud of him and the decision that he has made because, again, they are serving something greater than self, but as Track, as my son would tell me, he says, don't pick me up, mom to thank me. Thank the troops I serve with and thank those who have gone on before me to allow me to do what I'm doing, yeah.
QUESTION: 2010 is an amazing year because it is an election year. We are rolling through the primaries. We just got through Illinois and I'm not even sure what's coming up next. Are you going to be endorsing specific candidates?
PALIN: I will. And I will be attending as many events for these candidates as possible. I'll probably tick off some people as I get involved, even in a few of the primaries, but I do want to encourage these contested competitive primaries. Truly, this is how we are going to find the cream of the crop to rise to be able to face a challenger in the general. Let's not be afraid of contested primaries. I'm going to assist in some of those, but I'll get out there and campaign and if not in all the races, campaigning for specific candidates, I'm going to be campaigning for the message, this common sense conservative message.
QUESTION: I can think of two words right now that scare liberals, President Palin.
CROWD: Go Sarah.
(END OF COVERAGE)
AI Response to Step 10:
Populist Elements in Obama’s Speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World
Speech quotes:
- 'They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn’t.'
- 'Each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people’s doubts grow.'
- 'Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith.'
These quotes suggest some degree of a Manichaean worldview by contrasting 'bad' elites (Wall Street, CEOs, lobbyists) with 'hardworking' ordinary Americans. However, the tone is relatively mild and lacks an absolute moral struggle between good and evil.
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification
Speech quotes:
- 'Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history’s call.'
- 'When the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt.'
- 'Despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.'
Obama references grand historical moments to frame his presidency as part of a broader historical struggle. However, this is common in political speeches and does not necessarily indicate strong populist tendencies.
Category 3: Populist Notion of the People
Speech quotes:
- 'Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit.'
- 'It’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.'
- 'I want to be the President of all Americans. Of all those who work hard to give a better life to their children, to their communities, and to their country.'
Obama does romanticize 'the people,' particularly the working class. However, he does not treat them as a homogeneous entity with a singular 'will,' and instead acknowledges the diversity of backgrounds and opinions.
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil
Speech quotes:
- 'Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith.'
- 'No wonder there’s so much cynicism out there. No wonder there’s so much disappointment.'
- 'With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.'
There is some framing of a corrupt elite (corporate interests, lobbyists, and Wall Street). However, it is not framed as a direct conspiracy against 'the people,' but more as systemic issues that need reform.
Category 5: Systemic Change
Speech quotes:
- 'With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests.'
- 'It’s time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress.'
- 'The Federal Government should tighten its belt just as families across America have tightened theirs.'
While Obama does call for policy changes, he does not advocate for an overhaul of the system. Instead, his proposals focus on working within existing institutions.
Category 6: Anything Goes Attitude
No quotes.
Obama’s rhetoric does not suggest a disregard for institutions or opponents. His tone remains conciliatory rather than combative.Non-Populist Elements in Obama’s Speech
Category 1: Pluralist Vision of the World
Speech quotes:
- 'For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same.'
- 'We must recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.'
Obama acknowledges the diversity of viewpoints and emphasizes consensus-building.
Category 2: Concrete Interpretation of Political Issues
Speech quotes:
- 'The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act.'
- 'Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act.'
Obama focuses on specific policy measures rather than abstract historical narratives.
Category 3: Democracy as Calculation of Votes of Individual Citizens
Speech quotes:
- 'To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.'
- 'If the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town – a supermajority – then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.'
Obama respects democratic processes rather than claiming to embody a singular 'general will.'
Category 4: Non-Antagonistic View of Opponents
Speech quotes:
- 'We still need to govern. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.'
- 'So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.'
Obama calls for bipartisanship and does not frame opponents as existential threats.
Category 5: Incremental Reform
Speech quotes:
- 'Let’s try common sense. A novel concept.'
- 'We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions.'
His focus is on reforming existing institutions rather than fundamentally changing them.
Category 6: Commitment to Institutional Norms, Rights, and Liberties
Speech quotes:
- 'My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination.'
- 'We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate.'
- 'We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity.'
Obama emphasizes the importance of democratic institutions and the rule of law.
Overall Comments:
Obama’s speech is largely pluralist, pragmatic, and policy-driven. While he does reference an antagonistic elite (corporate interests, lobbyists, etc.), it is framed as a systemic issue rather than a direct attack on 'the people.' He also does not present a 'general will' of the people, but rather acknowledges differences and calls for unity. The speech includes elements of historical reification and light Manichaean framing, but these do not dominate the discourse.
There are no strong populist tendencies, and the speech consistently respects institutional norms, democratic procedures, and pluralism.
Final Score: 0.3
While Obama uses some rhetorical devices that resemble populist language (e.g., contrasting Main Street vs. Wall Street), his tone is measured, and his focus remains on policy solutions rather than a moral struggle between 'the people' and 'the elite.' Thus, it is not completely devoid of populist elements, but it is still fundamentally a pluralist and pragmatic speech.
Populist Coding of George W. Bush's Speech (September 20, 2001)
Populist Elements in Bush’s Speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World
Speech Quotes:
- 'Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom—the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time—now depends on us.'
- 'We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.'
- 'The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.'
- 'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.'
The speech is structured as a direct confrontation between good and evil. Bush characterizes the war on terror as a cosmic battle between 'freedom' and 'fear.' The binary nature of the speech frames the situation as an existential struggle in which no middle ground exists.
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification
Speech Quotes:
- 'Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger, we have found our mission and our moment.'
- 'The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain.'
- 'This is civilization’s fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance, and freedom.'
The speech places the events of 9/11 into a grand historical narrative. Bush presents the response as more than just a national mission—it is framed as a moment of destiny, tied to the broader struggle of civilization itself.
Category 3: Populist Notion of the People
Speech Quotes:
- 'Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people.'
- 'We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground—passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer.'
- 'We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own.'
Bush speaks about the American people in an elevated, romanticized manner, portraying them as virtuous, brave, and unified. However, the speech does not present them as a homogenous entity against an internal elite, which is a key feature of strong populism.
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil
Speech Quotes:
- 'These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life.'
- 'We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century.'
- 'By abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism.'
Bush does not attack an internal elite but rather an external enemy—terrorists and those who support them. This is a distinction from traditional populism, where the 'elite' is usually an internal force betraying 'the people.' Here, the enemy is an outside force attempting to destroy American civilization.
Category 5: Systemic Change
No quotes.
Bush does not call for systemic change within the United States. His speech largely reinforces existing institutions, government actions, and alliances rather than challenging them.
Category 6: Anything Goes Attitude
Speech Quotes:
- 'These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.'
- 'They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.'
- 'Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.'
Bush presents an uncompromising stance, rejecting diplomacy in favor of absolute moral clarity. This 'either with us or against us' framing discourages debate or alternatives, characteristic of populist discourse. However, there is no call to bypass democratic institutions or normal procedures.
Non-Populist Elements in Bush’s Speech
Category 1: Pluralist Vision of the World
Speech Quotes:
- 'I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends.'
- 'No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.'
Despite the strong rhetoric elsewhere in the speech, Bush makes explicit efforts to distinguish between terrorists and the broader Muslim community, reinforcing a pluralist rather than a monolithic worldview.
Category 2: Concrete Interpretation of Political Issues
Speech Quotes:
- 'Tonight I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me—the Office of Homeland Security.'
- 'We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights, and take new measures to prevent hijacking.'
Bush provides specific policy proposals to improve national security rather than just relying on broad ideological appeals.
Category 3: Democracy as Calculation of Votes of Individual Citizens
No quotes.
Bush does not reference elections or direct democratic processes in this speech.
Category 4: Non-Antagonistic View of Opponents
No quotes.
The speech does not frame political opponents within the U.S. as enemies, but it does use strong language against external enemies.
Category 5: Incremental Reform
Speech Quotes:
- 'We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home.'
- 'We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act.'
The speech advocates strengthening existing institutions rather than overthrowing them, indicating a reformist rather than revolutionary approach.
Category 6: Commitment to Institutional Norms, Rights, and Liberties
Speech Quotes:
- 'I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here.'
- 'We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.'
Bush affirms American values and principles rather than calling for an overhaul of democratic norms.
Overall Comments:
Bush’s speech contains several populist elements, particularly a Manichaean vision of the world (freedom vs. terror), historical reification (framing the moment as a crucial turning point), and an uncompromising, 'anything goes' attitude regarding enemies. However, the speech does not attack an internal elite or present 'the people' as being at odds with an internal ruling class. Instead, it focuses on an external enemy, which places it closer to nationalist rhetoric than pure populism.
Additionally, the speech reinforces institutions rather than calls for systemic change, and Bush explicitly embraces pluralism by distinguishing between terrorists and the broader Muslim community.
While it contains moderate populist elements, particularly in moralistic and existential framing, it does not meet the threshold for a fully populist speech.
Final Score: 1.0
This speech incorporates populist rhetoric, particularly in framing an existential struggle and using charged language, but it does not contain all core features of populism—such as an internal elite or systemic overhaul. Thus, it is moderately populist but does not reach the level of a highly populist speech (2.0).
Populist Coding of Sarah Palin's Speech (February 6, 2010)
Populist Elements in Palin’s Speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World
Speech Quotes:
- 'America is ready for another revolution, and you are a part of this.'
- 'The Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda will leave us less secure, more in debt, and under the thumb of big government.'
- 'Our U.S. constitutional rights … we’re going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution and our country. This makes no sense.'
- 'We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.'
Palin presents the political landscape in stark, moralistic terms, depicting her movement as a revolution against an oppressive government. She portrays Washington as an out-of-touch ruling class that threatens American liberties, framing a struggle between the virtuous people and a corrupt elite.
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification
Speech Quotes:
- 'We are the keepers of an honorable tradition of conservative values and good works. And we must never forget that it is a sacred trust to carry these ideas forward.'
- 'The lesson of the last year is this: Foreign policy can’t be managed through the politics of personality.'
- 'That is immoral. That is generational theft.'
Palin describes her political movement as part of a grand, historic struggle. She invokes a sense of destiny, suggesting that those in the Tea Party are fulfilling a sacred trust to uphold America’s true values. Additionally, the phrase 'generational theft' suggests a larger-than-life battle for the nation's future.
Category 3: Populist Notion of the People
Speech Quotes:
- 'This is about the people. This is about the people.'
- 'The soul of this movement is the people, everyday Americans, who grow our food and run our small businesses, who teach our kids and fight our wars.'
- 'The Tea Party movement is not a top-down operation. It’s a ground-up call to action.'
Palin idealizes 'everyday Americans' as the heart of the movement and contrasts them with professional politicians. She emphasizes the Tea Party as a grassroots movement, reinforcing the notion that the people (i.e., ordinary citizens) must take back control from the elites in Washington.
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil
Speech Quotes:
- 'They keep borrowing and they keep printing these dollars and they keep making us more and more beholden to foreign countries.'
- 'Crony capitalism at its worst.'
- 'Even in Alaska, in a Republican-controlled legislature, my veto was overridden, and the money poured into those states.'
- 'We are drowning in national debt and many of us have had enough.'
Palin characterizes the political class as corrupt, self-serving, and detached from the struggles of ordinary Americans. She repeatedly condemns the government for backroom deals, corporate favoritism, and reckless spending, painting Washington as a conspiring elite that enriches itself at the expense of hardworking citizens.
Category 5: Systemic Change
Speech Quotes:
- 'The Tea Party movement is the future of politics.'
- 'We must never forget that it is a sacred trust to carry these ideas forward.'
- 'This movement is about the people. Who can argue with a movement that is about the people and for the people?'
Palin suggests a fundamental transformation of American politics through the Tea Party movement, advocating a people-driven political system that challenges traditional power structures.
Category 6: Anything Goes Attitude
Speech Quotes:
- 'We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.'
- 'We can’t spin our way out of this threat.'
- 'How’s that hopey-changey stuff working out for you?'
Palin employs a combative, dismissive tone, using sarcasm and mockery to belittle her political opponents. She rejects political correctness and diplomacy, favoring an aggressive, take-no-prisoners approach to governance.
Non-Populist Elements in Palin’s Speech
Category 1: Pluralist Vision of the World
No quotes.
Palin does not present a pluralistic vision in her speech. Instead, she frames politics as a battle between the people and the elites.Category 2: Concrete Interpretation of Political Issues
Speech Quotes:
- 'Washington has got to across the board, lower taxes for small businesses so that our mom and pops can reinvest and hire people.'
- 'We should expedite the regulatory and permitting and legal processes for on and offshore drilling.'
While much of her speech is ideological, Palin does provide specific policy proposals, particularly on taxes, energy, and economic policy.
Category 3: Democracy as Calculation of Votes of Individual Citizens
Speech Quotes:
- 'This year, there are going to be tough primaries. And I think that’s good. Competition in these primaries is good.'
- 'That is a healthy process. And it gives Americans the kind of leadership that they want and they deserve.'
Palin acknowledges the democratic process by emphasizing the role of elections and contested primaries.
Category 4: Non-Antagonistic View of Opponents
No quotes.
Palin does not extend a conciliatory view toward opponents. Instead, she demonizes the government and media as adversaries.Category 5: Incremental Reform
No quotes.
Her speech does not advocate incremental change but systemic transformation.Category 6: Commitment to Institutional Norms, Rights, and Liberties
Speech Quotes:
- 'It is time for more than just tough talk. I’m just like you, probably so tired of hearing the talk, talk, talk.'
- 'We need a clear foreign policy that stands with the people and for democracy.'
Although Palin discusses democracy and rights, her rhetoric does not emphasize institutional norms or respect for legal processes. Instead, her focus is on popular will and grassroots mobilization.
Overall Comments:
Sarah Palin’s speech is one of the most explicitly populist of the ones analyzed so far. It includes strong Manichaean rhetoric, a clear division between 'the people' and 'the elites', calls for systemic change, and an antagonistic approach toward opponents.
She portrays Washington as corrupt and the Tea Party as a revolutionary movement. Unlike other politicians who temper their criticism with pluralist appeals, Palin fully embraces the populist notion of the people versus an elite that conspires against them.
However, her speech includes some non-populist elements, such as specific policy recommendations and acknowledgment of democratic processes.
Final Score: 1.8
This speech is highly populist. While it stops short of outright revolutionary rhetoric, it meets nearly all the criteria for a strongly populist discourse. It scores slightly lower than Evo Morales (1.9) but significantly higher than Tony Blair (0.1) and Stephen Harper (1.3).
Instructor:
STEP 11 - Review your codingHere is the transcript of the video training that a human researcher would watch if one were to take the training. Read and absorb the information below as if you were a researcher learning about classifying documents based on the populist discourse in the document. This transcript includes the correct coding of the three speeches in the previous step. Compare your coding to our coding and make adjustments accordingly. Make sure you maintain this information and scale for future coding:
We'll go over these quickly. Later, if you have any questions about coding these speeches, we can discuss them.
Starting with the Obama speech, this is a categorical zero. It’s not a populist speech and lacks the necessary elements, but it’s not a 0.0 like the Tony Blair speech in previous training. Using decimals, this speech would score around 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4, depending on interpretation.
Why? There’s criticism of Wall Street and big companies, which can be read as criticism of elites oppressing the American people and profiting while regular workers suffer the financial crisis. There’s mention of ordinary, hard-working Americans who are enduring the effects of this crisis, while big companies continue to profit. These slight populist themes prevent it from being a 0.0.
However, it doesn’t include the 'general will' of the people or depict a unified, homogenous group, which are necessary elements for a speech to be considered populist with at least a category of one. It doesn’t cross the threshold into a categorical one, so it shouldn’t score 0.5 or higher, but it gets close. This is an example of a speech that sits between a categorical zero and one.
The Obama speech was probably the least controversial. The second speech, by Sarah Palin, is more populist. It falls between a one and a two. Some gave it a categorical one, while others gave it a categorical two—both are justifiable.
Palin references 'ordinary people' and their role in guiding politics. For example, she mentions Alaskans taking power back from politicians and big businesses cronying together, putting government back on the side of the people. She frequently references hard-working, ordinary Alaskans oppressed by big government, which she identifies as the elite in her speech. Palin describes Washington elites working with big companies to create a corrupt state.
At this Tea Party rally, Palin’s speech reflects small-government conservatism, where big government is the enemy. Her speech has a right-wing populist appeal but is not as strongly populist as Morales, who used more charged language like 'death cult of capitalism' and called for overthrowing the system. Palin’s language is moderate by comparison.
While she references historical figures like Ronald Reagan, this is standard for American conservatives and doesn’t carry the same weight as Morales’s rhetoric. Her speech includes populist themes but also touches on specific policies like taxes and economic issues, which are less Manichaean.
Palin’s speech might score around 1.5, or slightly higher, but it doesn’t qualify as a two. The elements are there and consistently used, but it’s more moderate. This speech is a good example of one that sits between categories, highlighting the need for decimals in scoring.
The third speech, by George W. Bush, is the most controversial. Everyone got it wrong, but don’t worry—when I first took this training, I got it wrong too. This speech is a zero.
It’s highly Manichaean with loaded language, clearly defining good and evil. However, terrorists are not an elite. For populism, the 'evil' must be an elite—a small, powerful group oppressing common people. In Bush’s speech, terrorists are portrayed as small groups, not as an overarching elite holding political power.
Moreover, the people in populism must be an underdog—a majority oppressed by elites. In Bush’s speech, the American people are portrayed as strong and united, not as an underdog needing to reclaim power. There’s no framing of Americans taking back control of Washington or politics. This speech is nationalistic, praising the entire American people as strong and resilient, rather than dividing them into 'real' people and elites.
For these reasons, Bush’s speech scores a zero. It’s highly Manichaean, but it doesn’t include the populist notions of 'the people' or an elite.
AI Response to Step 11: Adjusted Populism Scores and Rationale
Populist element in Obama’s speech
Manichaean Vision of the World (Category 1):
Speech quotes:
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.
Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification (Category 2):
No quotes:
Populist notion of the people (Category 3):
No quotes:
The Elite as a Conspiring Evil (Category 4):
No quotes:
Systemic Change (Category 5):
No quotes:
Anything goes attitude (Category 6):
No quotes:
Non-Populist element in Obama’s Discourse
Category 1: Pluralist vision of the world
Speech quotes
'We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. (Applause.) What’s at stake aren’t Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. And we have to reclaim them.'
Category 2: Concrete interpretation of political issues
Speech quotes:
'In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.'
'It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hardworking Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly 4 million jobs. And we lost another 4 million before our policies were in full effect.'
'Those are the facts. But so are these: In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs.'
Category 3: Democracy as calculation of votes of individual citizens
Speech quotes:
'Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: the fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation.'
Category 4: Non-antagonistic view of opponents
Speech quotes:
'Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow.'
Category 5: Incremental reform
Speech quotes:
'Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading practices in countries like China. (Applause.) There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders.'
'Join me in a national commitment to train 2 million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job.'
Category 6: Commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties
Speech quotes:
'Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.'
Overall comment:
In Barack Obama's speech, it is marked by non-populist element focusing in pragmatic and pluralistic features. Firstly, although there is an appeal to the American people, they are not understood as an inherently virtuous entity. Secondly, even though there is a reference to Wall Street and those at the top, the speech does not exclude an elite or an evil minority as the sole cause of society's and the people's problems. Finally, there is a reference to the general will of the people, but not as the ultimate source of political power that prevails above all else. Additionally, Obama’s speech is focused on specific topics, which are intended to be addressed through differentiated and concrete public policies. Furthermore, it demonstrates complete respect for institutions and the rules of the game, as well as the absence of combative language. This aligns it more closely with a pragmatic or pluralistic discourse. However, there are mild populist element, especially manichean vision, making difference between Main street and wall street.
Grade: 0.1
Populist elements in Bush’s speeches:
Manichaean Vision of the World (Category 1):
Speech quotes:
'The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.'
'Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'
'On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country.'
'Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime.'
'The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.'
Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification (Category 2):
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Populist notion of the people (Category 3):
Speech quotes:
'Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people.'
The Elite as a Conspiring Evil (Category 4):
Speech quotes:
Systemic Change (Category 5):
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Anything goes attitude (Category 6):
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Non-Populist element in Bush’s Discourse
Category 1: Pluralist vision of the world
Speech quotes:
Category 2: Concrete interpretation of political issues
Speech quotes:
Category 3: Democracy as calculation of votes of individual citizens
Speech quotes:
Category 4: Non-antagonistic view of opponents
Speech quotes:
Category 5: Incremental reform
Speech quotes:
Category 6: Commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties
Speech quotes:
Overall Comments:
The discourse contains some populist elements. First, it appeals to 'Americans,' the nation, or common individuals, portraying them in a romanticized manner. Second, it identifies an enemy—embodied by terrorism—specifically represented by Al Qaeda, its leader Bin Laden, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. However, while the speech exhibits a Manichean worldview and combative language, the constructed enemy is not a minority elite opposing the people. Instead, it designates an external enemy—a terrorist group—threatening the security of all Americans. Finally, the speech does not explicitly recognize the general will of the people as the ultimate source of political legitimacy for systemic change, nor does it contain elements of cosmic proportions. Consequently, this discourse cannot be classified as populist. Moreover, it does not incorporate explicitly non-populist elements, such as pluralist or elitist discourse; rather, it aligns more closely with nationalist rhetoric.
Grade: 0.2
Populist elements in Palin’s speech
Category 1: Manichaean Vision of the World:
Speech quotes:
'While people on main street look for jobs, people on Wall Street, they're collecting billions and billions in your bailout bonuses.'
'So, see, it's easy to understand why Americans are shaking their heads when Washington has broken trust with the people that these politicians are to be serving. We're drowning in national debt and many of us have had enough.'
Category 2: Cosmic Proportions and Historical Reification:
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Category 3: Populist notion of the people:
Speech quotes:
'The soul of this movement is the people, everyday Americans, who grow our food and run our small businesses, who teach our kids and fight our wars. They're folks in small towns and cities across this great nation who saw what was happening and they saw and were concerned and they got involved.'
Category 4: The Elite as a Conspiring Evil:
Speech quotes:
'Washington has now replaced private irresponsibility with public irresponsibility. The list of companies and industries that the government is crowding out and bailing out and taking over, it continues to grow.'
'So here's some advice for those in D.C. who want to shine in the greatest show on earth. Too often when big government and big business get together and cronyism sets in, well, it benefits insiders not everyday Americans.'
Category 5: Systemic Change:
Speech quotes:
'And I am a big supporter of this movement. I believe in this movement. Got lots of friends and family in the lower 48 attending these events across the country, and just knowing that this is the movement, and America is ready for another revolution, and you are a part of this.'
Category 6: Anything goes attitude:
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Non-Populist element in Palin’s Discourse
Category 1: Pluralist vision of the world
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Category 2: Concrete interpretation of political issues
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Category 3: Democracy as calculation of votes of individual citizens
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Category 4: Non-antagonistic view of opponents
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Category 5: Incremental reform
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Category 6: Commitment to institutional norms, rights and liberties
Speech quotes:
No quotes
Overall Comments:
There are clear populist elements in the speech. Firstly, it is possible to identify an appeal to a virtuous people represented by average Americans, workers, and the states. Secondly, a clear recognition of an elite is present, represented by the federal government and big businesses, which benefit at the expense of the people's interests. Additionally, the government fails to adequately address the issue of terrorism, allowing it to persist. Finally, there is an acknowledgment of the general will of the people as the ultimate source of political power, which will enable change and restore governance to the people. Nevertheless, although the speech clearly presents all the necessary elements of populist discourse, the presence of denunciatory language rather than combative rhetoric aimed at eliminating the adversary, along with the recognition of democracy as an inviolable framework, reduces the intensity of the populist elements. In this vein, there are no clear non-populist elements in the speech.
Grade: 1.5