|
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 |
On July 18 2018 00:30 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2018 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 17 2018 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'll note my harshest words are reserved for what I believe is a fairly small portion of the left. Excluding that group I think a lot of disagreement is about what can actually be accomplished. I think it is rather less, or rather will happen more slowly, than what people farther to the left believe is the main thing. Those to the left of you might characterize the disagreement as being about what we should not longer accept rather than what should be accomplished. This is an important distinction, and I think its where the problem lies. Leftists (and i count myself in this group) tend to think ideologically rather than practically, and it means we always end up talking past each other. It happens here daily. I am all about outside the box thinking, but sometimes the barriers to change are real. Like if I could design a system from the ground up, I'd likely be saying very similar things as you guys. But given the way a lot of stuff is built, I just don't think it will happen and I see limited value in pushing for it.
Your position is quite counter-revolutionary which is why many leftist rightly see your positions as opposition not alliance. It's a preference for negative peace over positive peace and most of us leftist know how this song ends. With middle class white liberals in the chair and PoC standing outside holding the bag.
It makes perfect sense why middle/upper-middle class white liberals desperately don't want radical change that undermines the system that's privileged them and their family for generations. Just don't think that because you don't shout slurs at gay people in public and say the bombing of civilians is unacceptable (when other people do it), doesn't mean we're on the same side.
Also while the reddit post was a decent summation, the reaction to the "they aren't that different" demonstrates people don't understand that it's less about whether Hillary is less bad than Trump (in most ways that's reasonably obvious), it's that she's still way outside of the "acceptable" range and Democrats pushing her (and her pushing Trump) was a terrible move. It's unsurprising many still would rather look to leftists like we're the ones who don't get it. We get it, we know it's hard, we just can't continue to accept the atrocities and horrific violence perpetuated in our name just because the one doing it has D next to their name.
|
On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. There are some reasons to discredit your perspective. The first would be that there is a lot of voter disenfranchisement in the USA, such as gerrymandering, preventing convicts from voting, trying to suppress black turn-out by various tricks, electoral college etc.. A lot of people can't vote because they have to work all day, or because there isn't a voting booth nearby, or because they aren't registered or they don't have an ID etc. Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. I would also say that voting is not the only legitimate form of doing politics. Historically most important reforms have roots in popular movements or come from strikes or demonstrations or other forms of political activism. It helps if you have friendly politicians in office, but even centrists or conservatives can enact good policy if they have to fear losing popular support. Also, the government is in many ways independent of the party which is in power (less true today), because of the permanent bureaucracy, the influence of corporations, the power of the military and the intelligence community and so on. Regardless of the increasing polarization, politicians are all pro-capitalist, pro-military and pro-business and have many things in common. Finally, it's useless and even reactionary to blame individuals for the existence of a system they have more or less no control over, and to say that because they weren't perfectly virtuous in the past that they should just accept a structurally unfair world. It betrays a sort of naive belief in voting fetishism.
Also, people are stupid and flawed, but that doesn't mean you can give up on them. Or consider yourself better than them because you lived up to some arbitrary rule. Behind the legal right to express your opinion is a moral stance that everyone's voice matters, everyone has a stake in society, it's non negotiable.
|
On July 18 2018 02:17 JimmiC wrote:
I can say that letters, at least at the municipal level, have a huge impact. Far more then phone calls, emails, and so on.
Emails are worthless. Every time I help someone deal with some shitty health-code or build violation, I tell them to forget email. Send them a letter or go in person to get the things you need.
|
On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design.
who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that.
also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions?
|
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions?
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
|
On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that.
it doesn't to me sound like a gov't build to favor corps and the wealthy (except insofar as all gov'ts are like that)
|
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions?
The last time a black person was elected president it spawned a million conspiracy theories about how he was illegitimate? And young people literally aren't allowed to vote. If you read between the lines, conservatives will always tell you that only elderly white male churchgoing small business owners should be allowed to vote and that any subversive vote cast makes you a communist who should be hanged for treason.
Also, technocratic and bipartisan rule is a nice idea in theory, but in practice forces you to start out by compromising with the hard right and by giving up on any universal moral stance. For instance, the best hope for the USA would be a landslide Dem victory in 2018-2020, with a hugely ambitious policy program that will be forced through despite GOP obstructionism. If you don't start out by saying: Medicare for all, health care is a right, -- and so on, then all these wonks and technocrats (i.e. lobbyists) will very quickly neuter your entire program.
|
On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
You know you're deep in the rabbit hole when "populist" only has negative connotations. "What kind of idiot thinks the government should be supported by the people they rule over"
|
On July 18 2018 02:28 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that.
The two political parties in the US(I assume we are dealing in US parties) only make up a tiny majority of the population in the US. There is a good 40-50% of the country that does not subscribe either. Bipartisan consensus is a good way to maintain balance, but also assures limited change. That does not make it meritorious.
Or to put it another way, bipartisan consensus does not get a country through the Great Depression. That is a case when the country was mismanaged and political bloodletting is necessary to move the country forward.
On July 18 2018 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. You know you're deep in the rabbit hole when "populist" only has negative connotations. "What kind of idiot thinks the government should be supported by the people they rule over"
Populist has negative connotations because it describes a politician that promises the unobtainable to get elected. It is an old term and not one that describes a political figure interested in the long term success of the nation, but the short term gains they can obtain. Running on a zero tax platform could be popular, but would bankrupt a state.
It has always had negative connotations, from the day this country was founded. Alexander Hamilton thought Thomas Jefferson was a populist demagogue, along with a number of other political figures from the era.
|
On July 18 2018 02:30 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? The last time a black person was elected president it spawned a million conspiracy theories about how he was illegitimate? And young people literally aren't allowed to vote. If you read between the lines, conservatives will always tell you that only elderly white male churchgoing small business owners should be allowed to vote and that any subversive vote cast makes you a communist who should be hanged for treason. Also, technocratic and bipartisan rule is a nice idea in theory, but in practice forces you to start out by compromising with the hard right and by giving up on any universal moral stance. For instance, the best hope for the USA would be a landslide Dem victory in 2018-2020, with a hugely ambitious policy program that will be forced through despite GOP obstructionism. If you don't start out by saying: Medicare for all, health care is a right, -- and so on, then all these wonks and technocrats (i.e. lobbyists) will very quickly neuter your entire program.
in what way are young people not allowed to vote? do you mean people who're legally minors?
there's a difference between calling a candidate illegitimate (still very dumb and racist of course on their part); and calling the votes themselves illegitimate.
I think you might be reading between the lines a little too hard. while I agree there's trends in that direction in some sense; I don't think it reaches the level to justify saying the youth/minority vote is itself illegitimate.
ok, you're conflating wonks and technocrats with lobbyists; the terms don't refer to the same thing even if there's some overlap; but you're saying they are. I see, so you are indeed using very different definitions than I am, and really rather inaccurate ones.
compromising with the hard right doesn't prohibit a universal moral stance as far as I can tell; it just might be harder to find a universal stance that can be agreed upon.
your proposed scenario of "best hope" sounds kinda like when Obama came in in '08; and put in obamacare, forced through despite GOP obstructionism. admittedly it was watered down some due to moderate dems. how well did that work out in the long run?
|
On July 18 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:28 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that. The two political parties in the US(I assume we are dealing in US parties) only make up a tiny majority of the population in the US. There is a good 40-50% of the country that does not subscribe either. Bipartisan consensus is a good way to maintain balance, but also assures limited change. That does not make it meritorious. Or to put it another way, bipartisan consensus does not get a country through the Great Depression. That is a case when the country was mismanaged and political bloodletting is necessary to move the country forward. Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. You know you're deep in the rabbit hole when "populist" only has negative connotations. "What kind of idiot thinks the government should be supported by the people they rule over" Populist has negative connotations because it describes a politician that promises the unobtainable to get elected. It is an old term and not one that describes a political figure interested in the long term success of the nation, but the short term gains they can obtain. Running on a zero tax platform could be popular, but would bankrupt a state. It has always had negative connotations, from the day this country was founded. Alexander Hamilton thought Thomas Jefferson was a populist demagogue, along with a number of other political figures from the era.
Populist was a self-describing term used by early leftist/socialist groups, in the propaganda war against socialism "populism" got sucked up into it.
It's straight up bourgeoisie propaganda to equate it to demagoguery
|
On July 18 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:28 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that. The two political parties in the US(I assume we are dealing in US parties) only make up a tiny majority of the population in the US. There is a good 40-50% of the country that does not subscribe either. Bipartisan consensus is a good way to maintain balance, but also assures limited change. That does not make it meritorious. Or to put it another way, bipartisan consensus does not get a country through the Great Depression. That is a case when the country was mismanaged and political bloodletting is necessary to move the country forward.
what makes you say it's categorically impossible for a bipartisan consensus to get a country through the Great Depression?
what kind of political bloodletting are you talking about? could it be done simply by purging some people within each party?
and remember, here the question wasn't whether it's ideal; but whether bipartisan consensus + technocracy is better than populism.
|
|
|
On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:28 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that. The two political parties in the US(I assume we are dealing in US parties) only make up a tiny majority of the population in the US. There is a good 40-50% of the country that does not subscribe either. Bipartisan consensus is a good way to maintain balance, but also assures limited change. That does not make it meritorious. Or to put it another way, bipartisan consensus does not get a country through the Great Depression. That is a case when the country was mismanaged and political bloodletting is necessary to move the country forward. On July 18 2018 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. You know you're deep in the rabbit hole when "populist" only has negative connotations. "What kind of idiot thinks the government should be supported by the people they rule over" Populist has negative connotations because it describes a politician that promises the unobtainable to get elected. It is an old term and not one that describes a political figure interested in the long term success of the nation, but the short term gains they can obtain. Running on a zero tax platform could be popular, but would bankrupt a state. It has always had negative connotations, from the day this country was founded. Alexander Hamilton thought Thomas Jefferson was a populist demagogue, along with a number of other political figures from the era. Populist was a self-describing term used by early leftist/socialist groups, in the propaganda war against socialism "populism" got sucked up into it. It's straight up bourgeoisie propaganda to equate it to demagoguery
My bad, I confused etymology populist with demagogue. Your point stands.
|
On July 18 2018 02:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:28 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that. The two political parties in the US(I assume we are dealing in US parties) only make up a tiny majority of the population in the US. There is a good 40-50% of the country that does not subscribe either. Bipartisan consensus is a good way to maintain balance, but also assures limited change. That does not make it meritorious. Or to put it another way, bipartisan consensus does not get a country through the Great Depression. That is a case when the country was mismanaged and political bloodletting is necessary to move the country forward. On July 18 2018 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. You know you're deep in the rabbit hole when "populist" only has negative connotations. "What kind of idiot thinks the government should be supported by the people they rule over" Populist has negative connotations because it describes a politician that promises the unobtainable to get elected. It is an old term and not one that describes a political figure interested in the long term success of the nation, but the short term gains they can obtain. Running on a zero tax platform could be popular, but would bankrupt a state. It has always had negative connotations, from the day this country was founded. Alexander Hamilton thought Thomas Jefferson was a populist demagogue, along with a number of other political figures from the era. Populist was a self-describing term used by early leftist/socialist groups, in the propaganda war against socialism "populism" got sucked up into it. It's straight up bourgeoisie propaganda to equate it to demagoguery Perhaps it is worth defining how it will be used here so that people are not arguing about different things by having different definitions. Show nested quote +"A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which posits "the people" as a morally good force against "the elite", who are perceived as corrupt. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, all of which are depicted as a homogenous entity and accused of placing the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism." How does this work? It is from Wikipedia.
Terribly. Unless the point is to malign support for the concerns of the people (still mostly just white people).
Though I suggest people who want to talk about the term go ahead and dive into it's history in this country
The People's Party, also known as the Populist Party or the Populists, was an agrarian-populist political party in the United States. For a few years, from 1892 to 1896, it played a major role as a left-wing force in American politics. It was merged into the Democratic Party in 1896; a small independent remnant survived until 1908. It drew support from angry farmers in the West and South. It was highly critical of banks and railroads, and allied itself with the labor movement.
en.wikipedia.org
On July 18 2018 02:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:28 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that. The two political parties in the US(I assume we are dealing in US parties) only make up a tiny majority of the population in the US. There is a good 40-50% of the country that does not subscribe either. Bipartisan consensus is a good way to maintain balance, but also assures limited change. That does not make it meritorious. Or to put it another way, bipartisan consensus does not get a country through the Great Depression. That is a case when the country was mismanaged and political bloodletting is necessary to move the country forward. On July 18 2018 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. You know you're deep in the rabbit hole when "populist" only has negative connotations. "What kind of idiot thinks the government should be supported by the people they rule over" Populist has negative connotations because it describes a politician that promises the unobtainable to get elected. It is an old term and not one that describes a political figure interested in the long term success of the nation, but the short term gains they can obtain. Running on a zero tax platform could be popular, but would bankrupt a state. It has always had negative connotations, from the day this country was founded. Alexander Hamilton thought Thomas Jefferson was a populist demagogue, along with a number of other political figures from the era. Populist was a self-describing term used by early leftist/socialist groups, in the propaganda war against socialism "populism" got sucked up into it. It's straight up bourgeoisie propaganda to equate it to demagoguery My bad, I confused etymology populist with demagogue. Your point stands.
Noted and appreciated.
|
On July 18 2018 02:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 02:30 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? The last time a black person was elected president it spawned a million conspiracy theories about how he was illegitimate? And young people literally aren't allowed to vote. If you read between the lines, conservatives will always tell you that only elderly white male churchgoing small business owners should be allowed to vote and that any subversive vote cast makes you a communist who should be hanged for treason. Also, technocratic and bipartisan rule is a nice idea in theory, but in practice forces you to start out by compromising with the hard right and by giving up on any universal moral stance. For instance, the best hope for the USA would be a landslide Dem victory in 2018-2020, with a hugely ambitious policy program that will be forced through despite GOP obstructionism. If you don't start out by saying: Medicare for all, health care is a right, -- and so on, then all these wonks and technocrats (i.e. lobbyists) will very quickly neuter your entire program. in what way are young people not allowed to vote? do you mean people who're legally minors? there's a difference between calling a candidate illegitimate (still very dumb and racist of course on their part); and calling the votes themselves illegitimate. I think you might be reading between the lines a little too hard. while I agree there's trends in that direction in some sense; I don't think it reaches the level to justify saying the youth/minority vote is itself illegitimate. ok, you're conflating wonks and technocrats with lobbyists; the terms don't refer to the same thing even if there's some overlap; but you're saying they are. I see, so you are indeed using very different definitions than I am, and really rather inaccurate ones. compromising with the hard right doesn't prohibit a universal moral stance as far as I can tell; it just might be harder to find a universal stance that can be agreed upon.
People from within the industry will always know best how the industry works. If you let technocrats come up with finance or health care reform they will always rule in favor of the industry and established practice. And many experts only have that position and reputation because of corporate backing, so that they will function as de facto lobbyists.
I have to say that your posts are very confusing, you are always mystifying about terminology and demanding hard evidence for any assertion, no matter how common. Or you're demanding I further explain statements which are already obvious. It makes it impossible to have a normal conversation. It is like talking to an AI, which answers every statement with some platitude. o.o
your proposed scenario of "best hope" sounds kinda like when Obama came in in '08; and put in obamacare, forced through despite GOP obstructionism. admittedly it was watered down some due to moderate dems. how well did that work out in the long run?
Obama was dedicated to a market based solution and sought to find bipartisan consensus even if it meant weakening the bill. I don't see how you could have read those events as Obama having a hardline moral stance and not compromising. In any case, the affordable care act was a huge improvement over the status quo.
|
|
|
On July 18 2018 03:11 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:28 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that. The two political parties in the US(I assume we are dealing in US parties) only make up a tiny majority of the population in the US. There is a good 40-50% of the country that does not subscribe either. Bipartisan consensus is a good way to maintain balance, but also assures limited change. That does not make it meritorious. Or to put it another way, bipartisan consensus does not get a country through the Great Depression. That is a case when the country was mismanaged and political bloodletting is necessary to move the country forward. On July 18 2018 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. You know you're deep in the rabbit hole when "populist" only has negative connotations. "What kind of idiot thinks the government should be supported by the people they rule over" Populist has negative connotations because it describes a politician that promises the unobtainable to get elected. It is an old term and not one that describes a political figure interested in the long term success of the nation, but the short term gains they can obtain. Running on a zero tax platform could be popular, but would bankrupt a state. It has always had negative connotations, from the day this country was founded. Alexander Hamilton thought Thomas Jefferson was a populist demagogue, along with a number of other political figures from the era. Populist was a self-describing term used by early leftist/socialist groups, in the propaganda war against socialism "populism" got sucked up into it. It's straight up bourgeoisie propaganda to equate it to demagoguery Perhaps it is worth defining how it will be used here so that people are not arguing about different things by having different definitions. "A common framework for interpreting populism is known as the ideational approach: this defines populism as an ideology which posits "the people" as a morally good force against "the elite", who are perceived as corrupt. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, all of which are depicted as a homogenous entity and accused of placing the interests of other groups—such as foreign countries or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". According to this approach, populism is a thin-ideology which is combined with other, more substantial thick ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, or socialism. Thus, populists can be found at different locations along the left–right political spectrum and there is both left-wing populism and right-wing populism." How does this work? It is from Wikipedia. Terribly. Unless the point is to malign support for the concerns of the people (still mostly just white people). Though I suggest people who want to talk about the term go ahead and dive into it's history in this country The People's Party, also known as the Populist Party or the Populists, was an agrarian-populist political party in the United States. For a few years, from 1892 to 1896, it played a major role as a left-wing force in American politics. It was merged into the Democratic Party in 1896; a small independent remnant survived until 1908. It drew support from angry farmers in the West and South. It was highly critical of banks and railroads, and allied itself with the labor movement. en.wikipedia.orgOn July 18 2018 02:51 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:28 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. superior for everyone; and it again seems like you'd be using very different definitions than mine to reach such a different conclusion. hence the query about that. The two political parties in the US(I assume we are dealing in US parties) only make up a tiny majority of the population in the US. There is a good 40-50% of the country that does not subscribe either. Bipartisan consensus is a good way to maintain balance, but also assures limited change. That does not make it meritorious. Or to put it another way, bipartisan consensus does not get a country through the Great Depression. That is a case when the country was mismanaged and political bloodletting is necessary to move the country forward. On July 18 2018 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote:On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on:
If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter?
I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. subquote: Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. who says the youth or minority vote is illegitimate? I don't recall hearing that. also, that a technocratic and bipartisan consensus rule is superior to a populist movement seems self-evident given the definitions of such. so I'm not sure why you're making that point; maybe you're using very different definitions? Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy. You know you're deep in the rabbit hole when "populist" only has negative connotations. "What kind of idiot thinks the government should be supported by the people they rule over" Populist has negative connotations because it describes a politician that promises the unobtainable to get elected. It is an old term and not one that describes a political figure interested in the long term success of the nation, but the short term gains they can obtain. Running on a zero tax platform could be popular, but would bankrupt a state. It has always had negative connotations, from the day this country was founded. Alexander Hamilton thought Thomas Jefferson was a populist demagogue, along with a number of other political figures from the era. Populist was a self-describing term used by early leftist/socialist groups, in the propaganda war against socialism "populism" got sucked up into it. It's straight up bourgeoisie propaganda to equate it to demagoguery My bad, I confused etymology populist with demagogue. Your point stands. Noted and appreciated. Sure why not, and we can also discuss the right wing version as well. Show nested quote +Moore (1996) argues that "populist opposition to the growing power of political, economic, and cultural elites" helped shape "conservative and right-wing movements" since the 1920s.[112] Historical right-wing populist figures in the United States have appeared in both parties, included Thomas E. Watson, Strom Thurmond, Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace and Pat Buchanan.[113] When Conservative Democrats dominated the politics in the Democratic Party, populism was a faction in the Democrats, while the Republicans adopt some forms of populism since 1980s.
The Tea Party movement has been characterized as "a right-wing anti-systemic populist movement" by Rasmussen and Schoen (2010). They add: "Today our country is in the midst of a...new populist revolt that has emerged overwhelmingly from the right – manifesting itself as the Tea Party movement".[114] In 2010, David Barstow wrote in The New York Times: "The Tea Party movement has become a platform for conservative populist discontent".[115] Some political figures closely associated with the Tea Party, such as U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and former U.S. Representative Ron Paul, have been described as appealing to right-wing populism.[116][117][118] In the U.S. House of Representatives, the Freedom Caucus, which is associated with the Tea Party movement, has been described as right-wing populist.[119]
Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, noted for its anti-establishment and anti-immigration rhetoric, was characterized as that of a right-wing populist.[120][121] The ideology of Trump’s former Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, has also been described as such.[122] Not everything is an attack on the left. Populism has been used by both sides, the only common thing seems to be no one likes to be called it (anymore) and everyone likes to call the other side it.
There is a professor historian who has a campaign about the misuse of the word populism and who has written a book about it. No offense to GreenHorizons, but if you want this perspective explained to you it's probably better to just find an interview with this person instead of continuing this back-and-forth.
See for instance here.
https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-42-populism-the-medias-favorite-catch-all-smear-for-the-left-ed631c8867ce
|
The terms people want is demagogue, rather than populism.
Now, there is an argument that populism is prone to having demagogues due to the anti establishment core of populism, but that is another argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
