Opinion The cause of the rise of global populism

[xcvbn]

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

Hmm maybe it had to do with throwing the previous president in jail for political reasons but misleading the public with the belief it was legitimate

Maybe that had something to do with it. Just watch Lula’s resurgence unfold

 

[xcvbn]

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?

The professional managerial class and liberal elites only care about sounding intelligent to themselves and their friends.

Just look at Manufactured Pete’s support and the gymnastics these people do mentally in order to support such a phony.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

I think *representative* democracy is a great idea. People are uninformed but should have say in the *ends* that we pursue.

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

Considered, sure. I think, however, that a lot of people are being led astray by CTs and other propaganda, and that I can see through that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

Huh? You didn't "threaten on substance." I agreed with you that if you define "populism" in the particular way that you define it, it is good.

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

I agree that that first sentence is another example of you engaging in dishonest argumentation.

There are not a multitude of conflicting "common-use definitions" for populism.

There are. Here they are again:

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.

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.

"Trashed" is not fair, IMO. The question you're asking me has a false premise, of course. I don't believe that 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. I explicitly told you that I agree that populism is good if you define it like that. Why are you misrepresenting my position?

Entirely unrelated red herring.

It's relevant because I'm explaining my position and my response to the OP, which you're insisting on misrepresenting.

 

[CauseImbetta]

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.

Left and right political influence and parties shift back and forth all the time.

 

[French Canadian]

It’s bc populism is the answer.

vox populi

Your use of Latin reminds me of the effect of populism in the Roman empire ; tyranny.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Huh? You didn't "threaten on substance." I agreed with you that if you define "populism" in the particular way that you define it, it is good.

Again, I am unaware of any recognized definitions of the word "populism" or "populist" that are at odds with the Britannica and Merriam-Webster definitions I have provided. I have given you opportunity to produce such a definition from another source.

What you have thus far claimed to be "definitions" are subjective critiques.

Here is your earlier disparagement of those drawn to populism:

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.

This is blanket and unqualified. There is no "good" or "bad" populism referred to here. I have challenged you to defend this statement.

I will give you a final chance: Either retract and disavow the above or explain why you believe populism only appeals to the dumb and uninformed.

 

[guns&moses]

I think that populism is the wave upon which shit-bags ascend to power.

The smart shit-bags will always affiliate with a populist movement.

Beware of popular shit.

 

[French Canadian]

Again, I am unaware of any recognized definitions of the word "populism" or "populist" that are at odds with the Britannica and Merriam-Webster definitions I have provided. I have given you opportunity to produce such a definition from another source.

What you have thus far claimed to be "definitions" are subjective critiques.

Here is your earlier disparagement of those drawn to populism:



This is blanket and unqualified. There is no "good" or "bad" populism referred to here. I have challenged you to defend this statement.

I will give you a final chance: Either retract and disavow the above or explain why you believe populism only appeals to the dumb and uninformed.

To be honest populism is a slippery term and his definitions of it are very understandable. Here, it is an insult for one political party to call another one populist. It is usually conflated with denagogy.

 

[panamaican]

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

Maybe my cynicism comes from my recent listening. I've been listening to the history of revolutions. England, France, Hungary, Poland, Russia, the United States, Mexico, Bolivia, Haiti, etc.

To my ears, the rise of populism is part of the cycle of societies. It's going to reassert itself repeatedly over the years, it usually presages some kind of change. Sometimes it's massive and sometimes it's not. I think the rise of populism in the U.S. is driven by very different issues that drive the rise of populism in the U.K. for instance.

The movements of the 1960's was as much a rejection of authority as anything we see now. They were their own form of populism. And we saw political parties breakdown and re-emerge then as well.

So, while I agree that it's happening, I'm hesitant to categorize as historically unique.

 

[French Canadian]

Again, I am unaware of any recognized definitions of the word "populism" or "populist" that are at odds with the Britannica and Merriam-Webster definitions I have provided. I have given you opportunity to produce such a definition from another source.

What you have thus far claimed to be "definitions" are subjective critiques.

Here is your earlier disparagement of those drawn to populism:



This is blanket and unqualified. There is no "good" or "bad" populism referred to here. I have challenged you to defend this statement.

I will give you a final chance: Either retract and disavow the above or explain why you believe populism only appeals to the dumb and uninformed.

Here is the cambridge dictionary definition : "political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinarypeople by giving them what they want"
Giving people what they want to get support, this is not a good long term strategy. It is not giving them what they need, nor caring for them. It is spoiling them to again power, no matter the long term consequences.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Here is the cambridge dictionary definition : "political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinarypeople by giving them what they want"
Giving people what they want to get support, this is not a good long term strategy. It is not giving them what they need, nor caring for them. It is spoiling them to again power, no matter the long term consequences.

This (poor, comparatively) Cambridge definition of "populism" could only be considered an on-its-face condemnation of populism if one assumes that what average citizens desire for themselves from the state is always, somehow, economically or socially, to their detriment. And that they, lacking the "proper" education and understanding, are oblivious to this.

With that reading it becomes like a definition specifically written by the "elite" class that true populism sees itself in conflict with. Which is both humorous and ironic.

 

[ultramanhyata]

To be honest populism is a slippery term and his definitions of it are very understandable. Here, it is an insult for one political party to call another one populist. It is usually conflated with denagogy.

So you disagree with Jack's assertion that there exists a "good" form of populism?

 

[Happy Man]

Your use of Latin reminds me of the effect of populism in the Roman empire ; tyranny.

The people didn’t start the tyrannies in Rome.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Again, I am unaware of any recognized definitions of the word "populism" or "populist" that are at odds with the Britannica and Merriam-Webster definitions I have provided.

I cited some for you, but you appear to have some kind of learning disability.

Here you go again:

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.

I will give you a final chance: Either retract and disavow the above or explain why you believe populism only appeals to the dumb and uninformed.

Populism as defined in the quote above appeals primarily to the dumb and uninformed. Your substituted version is fine.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you disagree with Jack's assertion that there exists a "good" form of populism?

Any term can be redefined, which would naturally change one's subjective assessment of it.

 

[French Canadian]

So you disagree with Jack's assertion that there exists a "good" form of populism?

I agree with him that you can define the word in a way for it to be good. However, populism is generally not used in that sense, at least where I am from. In history it is also used in that sense. It is often seen as a political strategy to gain power. The fact that you seemed not to know that it is very often used in that way tells me you don't know much about populism except a 6-7 word definition from a single source.

Slippery words are tricky, and I think we should use different words to designate different things, especially in political where conflating things can have consequences.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Any term can be redefined, which would naturally change one's subjective assessment of it.

At least FC provided a new, legitimate definition of populism. And not a loaded, intentionally prejudicial opinion piece.

 

[French Canadian]

The people didn’t start the tyrannies in Rome.

But they supported the movement that ended up being tyrannical.

 

[Happy Man]

But they supported the movement that ended up being tyrannical.

which movement? Sulla And his lists? The gracchi brothers? Caesar? Octavian?