Populism—the politics of resentment—is generally regarded as a right-wing phenomenon.
Former Prime Ministers of the Duchy of Luxembourg did not usually bestride the world like colossi, at least not until the advent of the European Union. This, indeed, is one of the great advantages of that Union, at least to members of its political class: that it provides them with the means and opportunity to become more important in retirement than ever they were when they held directly-elected political office. It is a kind of insurance policy against electoral defeat or other political disaster.
The New York Times ran two stories within two days about two very different nations. One story noted that France was an unhappy place in danger of electing an extremist, Marie Le Pen, as President. But the author found the plight of the country puzzling, noting that France has wonderful infrastructure compared to the United States and continued to have a culture second to none. He puts its misery down to the French fixation on the losses of past glories.
Another story focuses on the very different mood in New Zealand. People are happy there and many foreigners want to immigrate. The prime reasons given are its isolation from the rest of the troubled world and its social tolerance, as demonstrated by its legalization of same-sex marriage and acceptance of refugees. The photo accompanying the story shows Sikh men in colorful turbans against some pleasant New Zealand scenery.
The two stories show the weaknesses of the analytic powers of our elite media and its indifference to economic freedom. The best explanation of France’s stagnant misery and New Zealand dynamic happiness can be found in the The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. New Zealand ranks No. 3 and France No. 72 of the 160 nations surveyed in the economic liberty they permits citizens. Given that most nations ranked below France are developing nations, New Zealand and France inhabit pretty different economic universes among developed nations.