Opinion The cause of the rise of global populism

[Barteh]

The internet has given the people access to way more information than ever before. The people don't trust the corrupt establishment anymore.

 

[Doodies]

The internet has given the people access to way more information than ever before. The people don't trust the corrupt establishment anymore.

The problem with that is that they believe some obviously fake posts and conspiracy theories from Facebook posts over the news now.

 

[Jack V Savage]

People are dumb (and born uninformed) so populism always has some appeal. Plus, I suspect that we're seeing improvement in propaganda techniques to heard dumb people in that direction.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I question the core premise itself. What evidence is there that political parties are breaking down more significantly than in the past?

Always good to ask this question, and there always are protests. But I think there is a legitimate rise in it.

Although I have some big disagreements with it (and the writing is not great), I'd recommend this for some background:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22451908-the-revolt-of-the-public-and-the-crisis-of-authority

 

[ultramanhyata]

Discus..........

 

[ultramanhyata]

People are dumb (and born uninformed) so populism always has some appeal.

Yeah, only the poorly educated and easily duped believe that a government of, by and for the people is a sound concept.

Populism, properly understood, is simply the political version or political application of utilitarianism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, only the poorly educated and easily duped believe that a government of, by and for the people is a sound concept.

Populism, properly understood, is simply the political version or political application of utilitarianism.

If you redefine it to something less bad, it's not as bad as the real definition. Agreed.

 

[Barteh]

The problem with that is that they believe some obviously fake posts and conspiracy theories from Facebook posts over the news now.

"over the news now"

The problem with that is you have to define the news first because mainstream media is largely just propaganda. What trustworthy news is there at the moment?

 

[ultramanhyata]

If you redefine it to something less bad, it's not as bad as the real definition. Agreed.

Populism: Political program or movement that champions the common person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite. - Encyclopedia Britannica

It's a pretty straightforward concept. The fact that fake constructs sold as "populism" have been used by elites to deceive average citizens does not delegitimize populism any more than a huckster's fake cancer treatments delegitimize oncology.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Populism: Political program or movement that champions the common person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite. - Encyclopedia Britannica

It's a pretty straightforward concept. The fact that fake constructs sold as "populism" have been used by elites to deceive average citizens does not delegitimize populism any more than a huckster's fake cancer treatments delegitimize oncology.

It's not straightforward, but I agree that if you define it as good, it is good.

 

[djacobox372]

The workforce is being devalued and pushed aside to make way for automation leading to an overall sense of despair and worthlessness to the people.

 

[Starman]

Populism is not a problem. It is the solution to a problem. The problem is not income inequality. The problem is the global elite who do not simply disregard the will of those who elected them, but disdain them, and actively work against their best interests.

 

[The ScorpioN]

This post is a complete and utter perversion of societal problems gripping the world. To think that the left, on any continent, has the power to shape any society at-will is an absurdity. Look at Bolivia and Brazil- the left in those countries, which has the support of the vast majority of their people, were overthrown by right wingers. In the Bolivian example, the right-wing religious fundamentalist party who led the coup has regularly polled at 4%.

Lay off the Tim Pool and Sam Harris, buddy.

The left in Brazil was "overthrown" by a 55-45 democratic vote. Apparently the support wasn't as vast as you think.

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's not straightforward, but I agree that if you define it as good, it is good.

So produce the academically recognized definition of "populism" of your choosing and then explain why it is inherently problematic.

I have a feeling your argument against populism is the equivalent of the "socialism is bad because Stalin" non sequitur.

 

[ocfightfan]

Elites are working too hard to protect their position by tailoring the rules of the game so that they are exempt but the rest of us are not.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So produce the academically recognized definition of "populism" of your choosing and then explain why it is inherently problematic.

Not going to play along with your usual dishonest argumentation. Some definitions I had in mind when pointing to ignorance and mass stupidity as the cause (along with more-sophisticated propaganda):

The socioeconomic definition of populism applies the term to what it regards as an irresponsible form of economic policy by which a government engages in a period of massive public spending financed by foreign loans, after which the country falls into hyperinflation and harsh economic adjustments are then imposed.[96] This use of the term was used by economists like Rudiger Dornbusch and Jeffrey Sachs and was particularly popular among scholars of Latin America during the 1980s and 1990s.[93] Since that time, this definition continued to be used by some economists and journalists, particularly in the US, but was uncommon among other social sciences.[97]

An additional approach applies the term populism to a political strategy in which a charismatic leader seeks to govern based on direct and unmediated connection with their followers.[97] This is a definition of the term that is popular among scholars of non-Western societies.[97] Mudde suggested that although the idea of a leader having direct access to "the people" was a common element among populists, it is best regarded as a feature which facilitates rather than defines populism.[98]

In popular discourse, populism is sometimes used in a negative sense in reference to politics which involves promoting extremely simple solutions to complex problems in a highly emotional manner.[99] Mudde suggested that this definition "seems to have instinctive value" but was difficult to employ empirically because almost all political groups engage in sloganeering and because it can be difficult to differentiate an argument made emotionally from one made rationally.[99] Mudde thought that this phenomenon was better termed demagogy rather than populism.[31] Another use of the term in popular discourse is to describe opportunistic policies designed to quickly please voters rather than deciding a more rational course of action.[99] Examples of this would include a governing political party lowering taxes before an election or promising to provide things to the electorate which the state cannot afford to pay for.[100] Mudde suggested that this phenomenon is better described as opportunism rather than populism.

The fact that there are so many common-use definitions (that's not a comprehensive list) definitively refutes your assertion that it is straightforward.

I have a feeling your argument against populism is the equivalent of the "socialism is bad because Stalin" non sequitur.

Why? I already said that if you define populism as a good thing, it is good.

If you want to know why people are mobilized against rational governance, the answer is that liberals always face an uphill battle against both the idiot left and the right because one has to learn to think rationally, while irrationality is natural. And on top of that, propaganda methods (focused on pushing a blizzard of competing false claims and crazy theories) have gotten more sophisticated and effective.

 

[Mendacious]

Bad immigration policy + capitalism not guaranteeing prosperity for people who live in unproductive areas

A general feeling of disconnect between politicians and voters. Add in the income inequality thing where people think that if one person has money, that it came at the expensive of someone else.

I don’t see much else adding to it.

 

[HomeCheese]

Sometimes I wonder if democracy has given the people the illusion of control. Seems to me you can't get elected in the US without kissing corporate ass. The elected officials seem far more interested in the status quo, protecting industry and controlling the public than actually taking care of the people. Corporate media seems to run in the same circles too.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Not going to play along with your usual dishonest argumentation.

Absolutely none of what I have posted in this thread thus far could be reasonably categorized this way by any objective observer. Sadly suspected you would need to get your patented ad hom digs in. You're a lot like Trump in that way - when threatened on substance, move to a line of personal attack.

Some definitions I had in mind when pointing to ignorance and mass stupidity as the cause (along with more-sophisticated propaganda):

You're intentionally trying to conflate a general definition with opinionated editorializing. THIS is an ACTUAL example of someone engaged in "dishonest argumentation".

The fact that there are so many common-use definitions (that's not a comprehensive list) definitively refutes your assertion that it is straightforward.

There are not a multitude of conflicting "common-use definitions" for populism. But there certainly are a multitude of conflicting critiques of populism. Stop trying to intentionally muddy the waters.

Here are the two Merriam-Webster definitions of "populist" (Note: Their site defaults to "populist" when you type in "populism"):

1. a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people

2. a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people

Why? I already said that if you define populism as a good thing, it is good.

The actual definition of "populism" does not include any judgments, either for or against. It is entirely neutral.

You trashed people who are "populists". I am asking you to simply present an argument as to why only uneducated rubes believe the will of the people, rather than the will of a small set of elites, should be steering the ship of state.

If you want to know why people are mobilized against rational governance, the answer is that liberals always face an uphill battle against both the idiot left and the right because one has to learn to think rationally, while irrationality is natural. And on top of that, propaganda methods (focused on pushing a blizzard of competing false claims and crazy theories) have gotten more sophisticated and effective.

Entirely unrelated red herring.

 

[tinker_190]

Not going to play along with your usual dishonest argumentation. Some definitions I had in mind when pointing to ignorance and mass stupidity as the cause (along with more-sophisticated propaganda):



The fact that there are so many common-use definitions (that's not a comprehensive list) definitively refutes your assertion that it is straightforward.



Why? I already said that if you define populism as a good thing, it is good.

If you want to know why people are mobilized against rational governance, the answer is that liberals always face an uphill battle against both the idiot left and the right because one has to learn to think rationally, while irrationality is natural. And on top of that, propaganda methods (focused on pushing a blizzard of competing false claims and crazy theories) have gotten more sophisticated and effective.

So is democracy a bad idea? It would follow, based on what you're saying, that it is, since the population is deemed unworthy or incapable.

Have you also considered that maybe you are the one that has been propagandized?