Populism - "Politics for Dummies"

[dblack]

I found a definition, and fixed it for them:

pop·u·lism
/ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/

noun

1. a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary stupid people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite smart groups.

I suspect some of you will disagree with this - but it sure seems to be how populism plays out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Corrected or uncorrected, it’s still ridiculous – and dangerous – idiocy.

In Europe it has given rise to neo-fascist reactionaryism and hateful anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim policies.

In the United States it’s the basis for white grievance politics, nativism, and racist replacement theory.

 

[lg325]

What is dangerous is having a group of people who are born into privilege believe they should run everyone else's lives. These are people I find live isolated lives and have no idea of what the rest of us want are need. They are naive and are easily manipulated by others. I refer to them as the '' Let them eat cake people''. The result of these types running a government without the voice of the regular citizens involved is revolution.

 

[Decus]

I found a definition, and fixed it for them:



I suspect some of you will disagree with this - but it sure seems to be how populism plays out.

Like this Obama supporter:



.

 

[ClaireH]

I found a definition, and fixed it for them:



I suspect some of you will disagree with this - but it sure seems to be how populism plays out.

DBlack: do you subscribe to this ideology: "When populist leaders discredit formal institutions and functions, democracy is being undermined and hollowed out, warns Stanford political scientist and paper co-author Anna Grzymala-Busse."

Populism jeopardizes democracies around the world | Stanford News

In a new white paper, Stanford scholars including Anna Grzymala-Busse say that the failure of mainstream political parties to address a fast-spreading ideology intent on sowing government mistrust and excluding marginalized people is putting democracies around the world at risk.

news.stanford.edu

I do not subscribe to that viewpoint. I consider it a good thing to question everything government related, particularly when it has to do with people making decisions for the masses. Yes, we normal folk, the stupid ones that you've mentioned in your fine thread here

For one thing, you know there are various types of populist groups and goals, and they can be left or right, extreme left or extreme right. These groups have very different goals but their leaders use a similar style of uniting people against lack of governmental transparency. Governmental motivations are usually one's best guess. Can we believe the media's take, Biden's blunderings, or Palski's words? Not a chance.

Do I expect governmental administrations to be totally transparent? No, but the public demand for transparency helps remind them that we'll continue to look for answers even if they don't openly provide them. You see, it's about doing the maximum one can to acquire knowledge. Period. In a nutshell. If you break that down, place extra barriers between the truth and the masses, the masses get restless. Happens every time just plays out in different ways.

The only thing government should block from the common man's knowledge involves military ops that would expose locations or planning. Heck, the media shares all of that anyway once they find out so that's a mute point.

Not all populists are dummies. I am no dummy and could be considered part-populist. Labels are inaccurate and get thrown around to cover more people than they do. Populist rooted for sure as I've watched my family, each generation succeeding more than previous one, committing to hard work and individual efforts. I fully support individuals doing everything they can to survive and succeed without reliance on government subsidies unless absolutely out of necessity (draughts/farmers, uncontrollable economic disaster etc.)

Now, there is one aspect of populism that I don't like, but again it depends on the group and goals. "Others". There are no "others" in my book, we are all people first and foremost regardless of what divisional labels are used for identification. There are good people and bad people from all walks of life.

 

[dblack]

DBlack: do you subscribe to this ideology: "When populist leaders discredit formal institutions and functions, democracy is being undermined and hollowed out, warns Stanford political scientist and paper co-author Anna Grzymala-Busse."

Well, that's just a claim, not an ideology - but I guess it depends on the particulars. In my view, the problem with populism isn't, necessarily, the erosion of public trust, or any particular policies. The problem is that it elevates, celebrates, stupidity over intelligence.

I do not subscribe to that viewpoint. I consider it a good thing to question everything government related, particularly when it has to do with people making decisions for the masses. Yes, we normal folk, the stupid ones that you've mentioned in your fine thread here

Are you a populist?

Not all populists are dummies. I am no dummy and could be considered part-populist.

Why? What about your political philosophy would you call "populist"?

Words ebb and flow, and, especially in politics, get twisted around. But all the definitions of populism that I've found included, as the core theme, the quote in the OP - namely the idea that the opinions of ordinary people are just as valuable as educated experts - or even moreso. And that strikes me as a plainly dumb way to approach governing a country.

 

[dblack]

What is dangerous is having a group of people who are born into privilege believe they should run everyone else's lives. These are people I find live isolated lives and have no idea of what the rest of us want are need. They are naive and are easily manipulated by others. I refer to them as the '' Let them eat cake people''. The result of these types running a government without the voice of the regular citizens involved is revolution.

And I can totally agree with that. But we don't need to go "full retard" to clean house.

 

[ClaireH]

Well, that's just a claim, not an ideology - but I guess it depends on the particulars. In my view, the problem with populism isn't, necessarily, the erosion of public trust, or any particular policies. The problem is that it elevates, celebrates, stupidity over intelligence.


Are you a populist?



Why? What about your political philosophy would you call "populist"?

Words ebb and flow, and, especially in politics, get twisted around. But all the definitions of populism that I've found included, as the core theme, the quote in the OP - namely the idea that the opinions of ordinary people are just as valuable as educated experts - or even moreso. And that strikes me as a plainly dumb way to approach governing a country.

The reason I selected that specific claim, thank you yes-I'd extended it to others stating similar things as more of an ideology but in that quote only one opinion, but it brought about my own thoughts of what I think of good populist traits opposed to the bad traits often presented by individuals.

Quick history- as a child-fully trusted everything the government revealed. My parents were both conservatives although my dad came from a long line of Democrat farmers. That side of the family still solid Democrat, mom's all Republicans. Politics were discussed but not a primary topic. Teens-still fully trusted governmental officials because I thought the media would expose all important falsehoods. Yikes was I off! lol Young adult-learned media could go either way with info mostly depending on the political position of the network- a person could choose. As an adult-can't trust media owned by NY billionaires unless it's full promotion of liberal viewpoints, can't trust most governmental reps to tell the truth nor follow through on their words, and forget about media calling out anything unless it fits their network's agenda. I would prefer to trust all entities mentioned although would reflect a very different reality.

Am I a populist you asked? I don't know, depends upon the definition. I find parts of the standard definition fitting-about self-responsibility being a core root to all action. Individuals get things done by grouping together with similar mindsets, gathering the numbers to gain traction. Populism is defined as supporting the individual, which I extend to supporting small businesses, new start-ups finding it more than difficult to get an edge in now often can't compete with the the mega-corporations. IMO-there should be no corps acting like monopolies. It has been argued in court that Facebook for example, is in fact a monopoly on that particular market. It's very hard to take food away from a lion, but much easier to divide up the shares before distribution. Hmmm if that sounds close to being socialistic in nature I'm missing the mark. I reject any effort that encourages more people to remain on governmental checks/tax payer money. The recent 2-month unemployment extension increased the length of unemployment and was more than wrong, when employers are begging for workers all over the place.

A good populist is an informed populist. You're referring to people who don't do the leg-work to be informed. Yes, those who don't read much get in the mix and found in most all political groups. A lot of your commoners will not be dressed in fashionable attire, we prefer comfort-tee shirts and jeans The media selects which individuals to follow and film. They choose the most entertaining ones perhaps. Are there political rallies that have people with very little knowledge about most topics, including politics? Yes, but let's not extend that impression to falsely say that all who claim to be a populist are exactly like the rest, cookie cutter images even.

Same deal with saying I'm a libertarian. From that label alone people have made all kinds of incorrect assumptions and most being way off. A person hears that one individual, a libertarian for instance, who due to his political beliefs does not involve showing proof of jab to an employer. He likes his job, gets the jabs, but decides to wear his mask at work even though not required. His reason is that he didn't want to show proof of vaccine to his employer. Now personally, if I had the jabs I'd show the paperwork. So, I'd say that person is either more of a libertarian that I am or...a different blend of one. One person who claims to be "X" says something or does something and all others who accept that same label will share in the "Oh! Look what they are doing now!" blanket representation. You can see it happening with all groups given a collective label representing that everyone under that label is the same which is never the case unless maybe identical twins...but even then you cannot say all ideas are identical.
So, what does all of that have to do with being a part-populist? A good populist does not sit around on her or her bum, unless of course posting on USMB lol

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Democrats used to be very proud of being populists.
What happened?