EPTOn July 18 2018 03:11 JimmiC wrote:
Sure why not, and we can also discuss the right wing version as well.
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.
Show nested quote +
On July 18 2018 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
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
en.wikipedia.org
Noted and appreciated.
On July 18 2018 02:51 JimmiC wrote:
Perhaps it is worth defining how it will be used here so that people are not arguing about different things by having different definitions.
How does this work? It is from Wikipedia.
On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
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:
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.
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 02:28 zlefin wrote:
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.
On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
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 02:11 Grumbels wrote:
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.
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.
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:
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 02:25 Plansix wrote:
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
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 02:11 Grumbels wrote:
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.
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.
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.org
On July 18 2018 02:51 Plansix wrote:
My bad, I confused etymology populist with demagogue. Your point stands.
On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
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:
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.
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 02:28 zlefin wrote:
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.
On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
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 02:11 Grumbels wrote:
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.
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.
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:
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 02:25 Plansix wrote:
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
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 02:11 Grumbels wrote:
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.
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.
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]
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.
Yes, after the populist movement was essentially dissolved into (this is where the labels get a little hazy) the Democratic party of the 1900's the term was co-opted to describe "demagoguery" which was primarily used to target left-wing socialish governments which derived their support from the people rather than established elites. It's pejorative and shallow use has continued and expanded to describe many different leaders with many radically different ideologies, intentions, and actions.
The point being to discredit the term, to undermine the "unifying" message of popular support as a result of prioritizing the concerns of oppressed peoples to those exploiting them.
Hence the original assertion that one is already deep down the rabbit hole when populism has only negative connotations. It means the propaganda has successfully corrupted not only the term, but the idea for which the term was created.
On July 18 2018 03:15 Grumbels wrote:
There is aprofessor 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
Show nested quote +
On July 18 2018 03:11 JimmiC wrote:
Sure why not, and we can also discuss the right wing version as well.
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.
On July 18 2018 03:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
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
en.wikipedia.org
Noted and appreciated.
On July 18 2018 02:51 JimmiC wrote:
Perhaps it is worth defining how it will be used here so that people are not arguing about different things by having different definitions.
How does this work? It is from Wikipedia.
On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
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:
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.
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 02:28 zlefin wrote:
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.
On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
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 02:11 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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:
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 02:25 Plansix wrote:
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
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 02:11 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.org
On July 18 2018 02:51 Plansix wrote:
My bad, I confused etymology populist with demagogue. Your point stands.
On July 18 2018 02:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
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:
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.
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 02:28 zlefin wrote:
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.
On July 18 2018 02:25 Plansix wrote:
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
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 02:11 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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:
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 02:25 Plansix wrote:
Superior for whom? That sounds like a goverment built to favor corporations and the wealthy.
On July 18 2018 02:21 zlefin wrote:
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 02:11 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
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]
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
See for instance here.
https://medium.com/@CitationsPodcst/episode-42-populism-the-medias-favorite-catch-all-smear-for-the-left-ed631c8867ce
lol wish I saw that before I tried to write that... Thanks though, no offense taken.
