| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
I can't see that being covered elsewhere yet. What does that wall of jargon mean in practice? Trump has called up the reserve to do... things? I have zero faith in Trump's ability to handle this crisis, so I'm fully on board if you believe one of his EOs is bad, but I would appreciate some more context. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On March 28 2020 03:42 Starlightsun wrote: They're suspending all EPA enforcement in the name of fighting pandemic: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/489753-epa-suspends-enforcement-of-environmental-laws-amid-coronavirus Also blocking all immigration on the Mexican border... Funny how this is stuff that Trump wanted to do but couldn't normally. Reading around a bit, it sounds like people think this is a way of trying to bail out the oil industry given their current troubles. The way that reducing pollution and trying to reduce the effects of climate change is treated as an "undue hardship" on these poor, poor polluting companies by the Trump administration is... disgraceful, to say the least. I must admit, though, that the cynic in me just wants to say, "what enforcement?" The Trump EPA has been toothless enough that I'm left wondering if it ever enforced any of their rules in the first place. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
Trump vs the EPA seems like the same situation on a much larger and more serious scale. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23586 Posts
On March 28 2020 12:12 Belisarius wrote: Yeah. One of our cities stood down all its parking inspectors around midweek. It was another few days before they announced that parking was now free, despite it having been free in practice from the moment fines were suspended. Trump vs the EPA seems like the same situation on a much larger and more serious scale. There are areas all over the country where there are ongoing battles over businesses polluting local resources where this lapse in enforcement (to the degree it existed) will devastate communities indefinitely without any hope of recourse or justice. Like if someone used a lapse in parking enforcement to park a leaky tanker full of toxic waste in front of town hall and then eventually moved it (once it's leaked its entire contents and) when enforcement comes back | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
I can't really see that with Sanders at all. | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
My own understanding of populist politics is when the elite disingenuously presents itself as solving factor of a heated issue facing the common man, allowing the case to take front and center in the politician's presentation of their party politics. This is disingenuous, as the ammount of attention given to this case of the common man is entirely disproportionate to the ammount of work or politics that will be put into it. The entire method is very much made to feed on people's emotional response to situations, rather than applying to rational thinking. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15728 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12379 Posts
On March 28 2020 19:31 plated.rawr wrote: The typical definition of populism is the politics of the "common man" rather than the politics of the elite (politicians), however I feel that's a far too broad definition that doesn't really describe how it's being used. More than anything, I regard populist politicians as using the politics of the common man as a sort of Trojan horse to bringing their actual party politics into play, where people are too blinded by the promises to the common man to see the greater intent of the politician. My own understanding of populist politics is when the elite disingenuously presents itself as solving factor of a heated issue facing the common man, allowing the case to take front and center in the politician's presentation of their party politics. This is disingenuous, as the ammount of attention given to this case of the common man is entirely disproportionate to the ammount of work or politics that will be put into it. The entire method is very much made to feed on people's emotional response to situations, rather than applying to rational thinking. Your understanding is a pretty common understanding. When I had a course on populism at university it was pretty close to what I was taught as well. This shift in meaning seems ideological to me, and it's part of what I was trying to talk about. There's no natural reason why the -ism for class struggle (to simplify) should end up describing this type of politicians. But now we transpose social democracy into neoliberalism, and suddenly the left represents a status quo defense of elites instead of class struggle; obviously the right still doesn't represent class struggle because the right loves hierarchies, it just wants a specific identity on top of the hierarchy. Under the new framework there's no place for the term populism in mainstream politics, but the term still exists and the people who have resentment against elites still exist. The right now gets to appeal to them because they have no problem lying to win elections, and that's how we get this new, self-contradictory understanding of populism. As Acro pointed out, we already had terms for this situation, like "demagoguery". But it is helpful politically if we merge the two, as it creates a negative association for the main force behind leftwing change. It also helps with the main presentation of politics that neoliberalism wants, where on one side there are rational people, who defend the system as it is now and vote left, and on the other there are irrational people, who attack the system from the right and want other, objectively worse stuff, that you should vote against if you're rational because that's the rational thing to do. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23586 Posts
On March 28 2020 23:58 Mohdoo wrote: Fox News saying nothing about this rape thing makes me think its a big fan nothing burger. Fox News, Vox, Newsweek, Huffpo, and National Review all had stories up on the recounting of Biden's alleged sexual assault against Tara Reade last I checked? I don't think it is a great way to approach the situation generally, but it also just isn't true that they are saying nothing. EDIT: Looks like The Guardian has one up too: Why has the media ignored sexual assault allegations against Biden? (headline) | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On March 29 2020 00:36 Nebuchad wrote: Your understanding is a pretty common understanding. When I had a course on populism at university it was pretty close to what I was taught as well. This shift in meaning seems ideological to me, and it's part of what I was trying to talk about. There's no natural reason why the -ism for class struggle (to simplify) should end up describing this type of politicians. But now we transpose social democracy into neoliberalism, and suddenly the left represents a status quo defense of elites instead of class struggle; obviously the right still doesn't represent class struggle because the right loves hierarchies, it just wants a specific identity on top of the hierarchy. Under the new framework there's no place for the term populism in mainstream politics, but the term still exists and the people who have resentment against elites still exist. The right now gets to appeal to them because they have no problem lying to win elections, and that's how we get this new, self-contradictory understanding of populism. As Acro pointed out, we already had terms for this situation, like "demagoguery". But it is helpful politically if we merge the two, as it creates a negative association for the main force behind leftwing change. It also helps with the main presentation of politics that neoliberalism wants, where on one side there are rational people, who defend the system as it is now and vote left, and on the other there are irrational people, who attack the system from the right and want other, objectively worse stuff, that you should vote against if you're rational because that's the rational thing to do. I think it is true that populism has morphed to mean 'demagoguery'. However the charge is mostly leveled against right wing/nationalist politicians so I dont think this shift in meaning is evidence of an 'anti-left' ideological stance. Sure it's true that there is a certain kind of liberal who enjoys making comparisons between leftists and ethno-nationalists (using 'anti intellectual populist', or 'authoritarian' to describe both) but there are also leftists and progressives who enjoy making comparisons between center right conservatives (or even center-left liberals) and ethno-nationalists using language like "capitalist fascism" in order to score rhetorical points. That said, Im wholly unconvinced that the shift in meaning of the word populism is the driver (in any small sense at all) behind European social democracy being dragged kicking and screaming towwards the political right. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12379 Posts
On March 29 2020 06:57 KlaCkoN wrote: I think it is true that populism has morphed to mean 'demagoguery'. However the charge is mostly leveled against right wing/nationalist politicians so I dont think this shift in meaning is evidence of an 'anti-left' ideological stance. Sure it's true that there is a certain kind of liberal who enjoys making comparisons between leftists and ethno-nationalists (using 'anti intellectual populist', or 'authoritarian' to describe both) but there are also leftists and progressives who enjoy making comparisons between center right conservatives (or even center-left liberals) and ethno-nationalists using language like "capitalist fascism" in order to score rhetorical points. That said, Im wholly unconvinced that the shift in meaning of the word populism is the driver (in any small sense at all) behind European social democracy being dragged kicking and screaming towwards the political right. The shift in meaning is there so that you can portray all systemic change under the same negative light. If you google Bernie populist or stuff like this you will definitely get results to that effect. It's definitely not the driver behind neoliberalism, it's a side effect of it. It probably wasn't even a conscious effort, it makes a lot of sense that it would happen provided the shift. It is however dangerous for leftists to accept this idea because then it modifies the notion of change. A change that is acceptable cannot be populist anymore, and if it isn't populist, it by definition must have the approval and perhaps the backing of the elites. This is another interesting concept: elites having the monopoly on change and deciding what gets to be possible or impossible. Anand Giridharadas explores that better than me in Winners take all. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Populism is much more about where to allocate 'blame', which is usually as other users have said a sort of cabal or elite or minority group of whatever kind. It's about the presence of some 'other' on which collective failure is projected. One can be what is considered to be a political moderate and still advocate for systemic change. The difference is primarily that moderates tend to take everyone into account as far as responsibility for the current ills is concerned. Take for example a textbook 'moderate' policy such as a carbon tax. If it were to be implemented it would obviously have huge implications and systemic effects. It has the potential to drastically shift consumption and production towards greener policy. It's not really in the populist toolbox though, because it both lacks a particular target to blame for a problem, and it acknowledges right up that everyone will have to adjust their behaviour. | ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3024 Posts
On March 28 2020 23:58 Mohdoo wrote: Fox News saying nothing about this rape thing makes me think its a big fan nothing burger. I thought it was pretty clear that republicans want Biden over Sanders, all the conservative subs on reddit celebrated the Biden wins on super tuesday and others. Fox will probably cover this after the primaries are over. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7953 Posts
How Darwinism has allowed for those people to exist certainly challenges science. I think some of you mix up populism and demagoguery. One is a narrative, the other one an attitude to the truth. They are not mutually exclusive, but don't necessarily go together. Sanders is not really a demagogue, and I'm not sure himself is a populist. But in his campaign are elements and narratives that are strongly populistic: "the people against the establishment" for example is textbook populism. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23586 Posts
On March 29 2020 16:24 Biff The Understudy wrote: So the usual task force of internet fascists lead a grand campaign against Fauci because he undermines the Great Leader by, you know, saying the truth. How Darwinism has allowed for those people to exist certainly challenges science. I think some of you mix up populism and demagoguery. One is a narrative, the other one an attitude to the truth. They are not mutually exclusive, but don't necessarily go together. Sanders is not really a demagogue, and I'm not sure himself is a populist. But in his campaign are elements and narratives that are strongly populistic: "the people against the establishment" for example is textbook populism. Populism is good. Demagoguery is bad. Conflating them serves the fascists in undermining necessary changes, is the point I and I believe Neb we're trying highlight. Did Vox, Huffpo, Newsweek, etc. running Tara Reade's story change your opinion on whether "#believewomen/#metoo" applies to Reade's allegations against Biden? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7953 Posts
On March 29 2020 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote: Populism is good. Demagoguery is bad. Conflating them serves the fascists in undermining necessary changes, is the point I and I believe Neb we're trying highlight. Did Vox, Huffpo, Newsweek, etc. running Tara Reade's story change your opinion on whether "#believewomen/#metoo" applies to Reade's allegations against Biden? There is nothing good about populism. It constitutes anyone with a different opinion into someone illegitimate and not worth listening. The moment you have decided that anyone who writes against your guy is doing so because he is "establishment media", that oppose him within the political sphere is "establishment politician" and so on and so forth, you have constituted yourself into an island of truth and legitimacy and assume that everyone who oppose you is either an agent of some sinister force (the establishment) or manipulated - and deceived - by those. Replace "establishment" by "neolibs", or "globalist", or "jewish" depending what flavour you like your populism. (Which is by the way your attitude to that whole thread and why so many of us don't seem to take so much joy in discussing with you at all.) "The people" is nothing more than everyone living in a certain place. Nobody has the monopoly of being or representing it. Populism is a fallacy. As a side note, anyone who takes five seconds to think about it would realize that the term "establishment" means exactly nothing and is as good a concept as "international jewry" was at its time, and is used about as indistinctly as the terms neolib (that meant something once upon a time, now it means nothing at all) and globalist (always count on the far right to produce the dbesr concepts of all) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23586 Posts
On March 29 2020 16:57 Biff The Understudy wrote: There is nothing good about populism. That's what I was saying should have just been said instead of implied. By declaring his accurate identification of a radically distorted society with a handful of people hoarding more wealth than half the population as "nothing good" it serves the fascists whose continued existence perplexes you. Your position is key to their survival. + Show Spoiler + It constitutes anyone with a different opinion into someone illegitimate and not worth listening. The moment you have decided that anyone who writes against your guy is doing so because he is "establishment media", that oppose him within the political sphere is "establishment politician" and so on and so forth, you have constituted yourself into an island of truth and legitimacy and assume that everyone who oppose you is either an agent of some sinister force (the establishment) or manipulated - and deceived - by those. (Which is by the way your attitude to that whole thread and why so many of us don't seem to take so much joy in discussing with you at all.) "The people" is nothing more than everyone living in a certain place. Nobody has the monopoly of being or representing it. Populism is a fallacy. I'm guessing that means you still don't think "believe women" applies to Tara Reade and Biden, despite the additional publications that ran the story? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7953 Posts
On March 29 2020 17:10 GreenHorizons wrote: That's what I was saying was should have just been said instead of implied. By equating his accurate identification of a radically distorted society with a handful of people hoarding more wealth than half the population as "nothing good" it serves the fascists whose continued existence perplexes you. Your position is key to their survival. + Show Spoiler + It constitutes anyone with a different opinion into someone illegitimate and not worth listening. The moment you have decided that anyone who writes against your guy is doing so because he is "establishment media", that oppose him within the political sphere is "establishment politician" and so on and so forth, you have constituted yourself into an island of truth and legitimacy and assume that everyone who oppose you is either an agent of some sinister force (the establishment) or manipulated - and deceived - by those. (Which is by the way your attitude to that whole thread and why so many of us don't seem to take so much joy in discussing with you at all.) "The people" is nothing more than everyone living in a certain place. Nobody has the monopoly of being or representing it. Populism is a fallacy. I'm guessing that means you still don't think "believe women" applies to Tara Reade and Biden, despite the additional publications that ran the story? We can (sorry could) talk about inequalities without being totally binary and I don't see what Tara Reade has to do with it. I'll read those, and make myself an opinion. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23586 Posts
On March 29 2020 17:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: We can (sorry could) talk about inequalities without being totally binary and dumb, and I don't see what Tara Reade has to do with it. I'll read those, and make myself an opinion. It isn't binary or dumb? That's a projection people put onto his politics (which aren't mine btw). I'm closer to that binary than he is and I still think billionaires/"the establishment" are part of society and represent social problems not individual ones. + Show Spoiler + The problem I'd argue for many moderates is for those that want to shuffle/climb the social hierarchy of the status quo they will necessarily conflict with those that want to undermine it altogether. It goes back to meritocracy and how moderates implicitly think it is a good thing but poorly executed. They see themselves as the umps between a mock "left" and "the right" calling balls and strikes on the meritocracy. My argument is that the fascists need the moderates to toss the radicals that swing the bat at the nazis instead of their pitches out of the game. The fascists are willing to upgrade the moderates social position in exchange for favorable calls and before moderates realize it, they think they're calling a straight up game but it is becoming increasingly clear to the crowd they're protecting the fascists from the high-inside heat with arguments about civility and pragmatism. Hopefully you form an opinion (beyond skepticism of the alleged victim who is weathering a lot of invective from Biden supporters on the web, way worse than Warren) before Americans are forced to choose between two credibly accused rapists. EDIT: Put simply, fascists need moderates to survive. They act as their "evolutionary" bumper between fascists and those that would make it an untenable political ideology in our society. Biden pleading to preserve and collaborate with the same Republican party (and Mitch McConnell) empowering Trump demonstrates quite literally how the far right's social position/ideology is dependent on moderates protecting them from those that would make them untenable. This slimy smearing: + Show Spoiler + anyone who takes five seconds to think about it would realize that the term "establishment" means exactly nothing and is as good a concept as "international jewry" was at its time, and is used about as indistinctly as the terms neolib (that meant something once upon a time, now it means nothing at all) and globalist (always count on the far right to produce the dbesr concepts of all) of recognizing entrenched power by Bernie/anyone else and superficial connecting to antisemitic propaganda like "international jewry" is exactly what I'm talking about being necessary to preserving/protecting fascists. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
OSC
Clem vs Cure
ByuN vs TBD
TBD vs Solar
MaxPax vs TBD
Krystianer vs TBD
ShoWTimE vs TBD
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
|
|
|
EPT
