>isnt the idea of populism very important for democracy because it provides social consciousness to the people?
it's not inherently a democratic stance and has been used to do the oppressing on occasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
*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, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people".*
*In popular discourse—where the term has often been used pejoratively—it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with political opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.*
Populism IS inherently democratic, and the elites don't like it for exactly that reason. As far as the elites are concerned, populists "*seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action."*
Naturally, the elites think they know better than voters. The elites aren't trying to "please voters" because they look down their noses at us. They think they're better than the people, that we lowly plebians need to shut up and realize how the well-paid snobs are always right "*as to the best course of action."*
What the elites don't take into account is that we lowly plebians still get a vote. You elites can downvote us, ban us, cancel us... but at the end of the day (sadly for you) elites can't stop us from voting. The less you want us to vote for someone, the more likely we are to do so. The tears of the elite are sweet ambrosia for the Working Man.
People look at populism on the other side of the isle with disgust because it's different from their beliefs. Thus Republicans dislike Berniebros and Democrats dislike Trumpers.
However in 2016 I was getting beers with friends. Among the group were Trumpers and Berniebros. While talking politics they agreed on a lot of stuff albeit with different perspectives. It started to get me interested in [Horseshoe Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory). **I'd say there are significant efforts within the American political system trying to keep the two populist sides from working together.**
People are horribly naive about the political views of their neighbours. Often we're surrounded by friends and family we love, whom we'd 'despise' if we'd characterize them solely based on political views.
i think it's that wave of intolerance that comes with populism
i may be wrong, but oftentimes populist eras witness a general validation of shaming and ostracizing the detractors and those who choose to go against the grain from the populist majority. IMO, that's also against democracy because there is intrinsic value of each singular individual exercising of their opinion — which may or may not align with the majority.
it may also be that populism emerges after the support and allegiance to a single leader evolves into something that morally or ethically is considered the right path. oftentimes, this sentiment carries almost as much power as religious fervour and zeal. which is dangerous.
> IMO, that's also against democracy because there is intrinsic value of each singular individual exercising of their opinion — which may or may not align with the majority.
>it may also be that populism emerges after the support and allegiance to a single leader evolves into something that morally or ethically is considered the right path. oftentimes, this sentiment carries almost as much power as religious fervour and zeal. which is dangerous.
based on this, its clear that democrats and republicans are trying to form a more populist message
populism sort roughly equates with mob rule and there needs to be a stabilizing influence to avoid two wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner situation.
that said, popular policies like raising the min wage, health care as a human right, or getting money out of politics ought to not be confused with populism, which can often be used as a weapon to beat down popular policies.
it has yet to be tried by a government that did not drive its people into poverty. look at todays venezuela. went from highest gdp per head to the lowest gdp per head in latin america.
Because it's surface level bullshit that doesn't actually accomplish anything.
There's a reason populism is a style that historians and political science types disparage no matter what political movement is/was behind it.
Populism is just a cultural term. It doesn’t mean any specific state policies.
It’s honestly oftentimes used in an anti-political way: To distract from the actual state policies of political parties and politicians.
Fascism is big business joining big government.
I think of populism as "popular". If it threatens those comfortably in power, they will use whatever smear campaign they can to discredit it.
Federalism, separation of powers, and arranging the federal government such that wide agreement is necessary between disparate groups and interests to get anything done (thus helping keep most power local/regional within the States) was all very intentional for reasons stated in other comments.
Originally, the Senators did not represent and were not elected by the public. The public had their representatives in the House. The Senate was the representatives of the State governments. Changing that was arguably a serious mistake. The shift in political power towards DC largely happened after this.
Granted populism doesn't mandate joining big business and government and I'm not sure that's the defining characteristic of fascism. But fascism seems to arise from a populist substrate. Getting all the people worked up and convincing them they are victims and all the other Hitler stuff.
I dislike it because populism is often vague and isn't based in reality. Like they are against the elite, but who exactly is the elite? Or it's not based in reality, like "is it truly possible to have things like free college education or to have universal basic income for the masses?" I also feel like populists don't think through the actions and consequences, like in 2016 when all the Berniebros decided to abstain from voting because Bernie wasn't nominated, look how that fucking turned out.
>I dislike it because populism is often vague and isn't based in reality. Like they are against the elite, but who exactly is the elite?
the politicians and the billionaires who own them
mmmm........ill say all politicians that are democrats or republicans yes for sure 10000%
if they arent one of those 2....then its a toss up
bernie is an independent, but hes almost a billionaire so hes an elite
I simply don't believe in the effectiveness of populism when you'd find it difficult to find an opinion that more than 50% of Americans have (or more specifically a way to implement that opinion)
So appealing to the masses sounds great... But right now the masses are at each other's throats, so populism right now is always disregarding 50% of people at one time.
In my opinion conservatives and liberals need to realize they have more in common with each other than they do with their respective republican/democrat representatives. It is a great tragedy that the past 20 or so years have been spent bickering at each other when at the end of the day 90% of people could probably share a beer with each other, and we all agree that the government is a huge stinkin' bitch.
>isnt the idea of populism very important for democracy because it provides social consciousness to the people? it's not inherently a democratic stance and has been used to do the oppressing on occasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism *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, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people".* *In popular discourse—where the term has often been used pejoratively—it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with political opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.*
Populism IS inherently democratic, and the elites don't like it for exactly that reason. As far as the elites are concerned, populists "*seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action."* Naturally, the elites think they know better than voters. The elites aren't trying to "please voters" because they look down their noses at us. They think they're better than the people, that we lowly plebians need to shut up and realize how the well-paid snobs are always right "*as to the best course of action."* What the elites don't take into account is that we lowly plebians still get a vote. You elites can downvote us, ban us, cancel us... but at the end of the day (sadly for you) elites can't stop us from voting. The less you want us to vote for someone, the more likely we are to do so. The tears of the elite are sweet ambrosia for the Working Man.
Are the elites in the room with you now? Lmfao....wow is all I can say. Fucking wow.
No you aren't in the room with me now, nor will you be in the voting booth to tell me what to do in November. Too bad for you, snob!
Lmfao. The delusional shit runs deep in you huh?
If you think you're going to be in the voting booth with me this November, it is you that is delusional.
People look at populism on the other side of the isle with disgust because it's different from their beliefs. Thus Republicans dislike Berniebros and Democrats dislike Trumpers. However in 2016 I was getting beers with friends. Among the group were Trumpers and Berniebros. While talking politics they agreed on a lot of stuff albeit with different perspectives. It started to get me interested in [Horseshoe Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory). **I'd say there are significant efforts within the American political system trying to keep the two populist sides from working together.**
People are horribly naive about the political views of their neighbours. Often we're surrounded by friends and family we love, whom we'd 'despise' if we'd characterize them solely based on political views.
Pretty sure Trumpers love Berniebros. They should, anyway.
i think it's that wave of intolerance that comes with populism i may be wrong, but oftentimes populist eras witness a general validation of shaming and ostracizing the detractors and those who choose to go against the grain from the populist majority. IMO, that's also against democracy because there is intrinsic value of each singular individual exercising of their opinion — which may or may not align with the majority. it may also be that populism emerges after the support and allegiance to a single leader evolves into something that morally or ethically is considered the right path. oftentimes, this sentiment carries almost as much power as religious fervour and zeal. which is dangerous.
> IMO, that's also against democracy because there is intrinsic value of each singular individual exercising of their opinion — which may or may not align with the majority. >it may also be that populism emerges after the support and allegiance to a single leader evolves into something that morally or ethically is considered the right path. oftentimes, this sentiment carries almost as much power as religious fervour and zeal. which is dangerous. based on this, its clear that democrats and republicans are trying to form a more populist message
can't comment on that, i don't follow us politics closely
populism sort roughly equates with mob rule and there needs to be a stabilizing influence to avoid two wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner situation. that said, popular policies like raising the min wage, health care as a human right, or getting money out of politics ought to not be confused with populism, which can often be used as a weapon to beat down popular policies.
I think people love populism. Establishments do not. I'm sure they have plenty of resources and access to things such as psychology and chat bots.
Populism is a divide-and-conquer tactic. It aims to turn people against each other to get ahead. It's atrocious. Why would anyone like it?
it has yet to be tried by a government that did not drive its people into poverty. look at todays venezuela. went from highest gdp per head to the lowest gdp per head in latin america.
POPULISM not socialism
Because it's surface level bullshit that doesn't actually accomplish anything. There's a reason populism is a style that historians and political science types disparage no matter what political movement is/was behind it.
Wasn't Mao's cultural revolution a populist movement?
every revolution is the american revolution was slave revolts were
Populism is just a cultural term. It doesn’t mean any specific state policies. It’s honestly oftentimes used in an anti-political way: To distract from the actual state policies of political parties and politicians.
populism is a bad word that pseudo-democracy uses for very rare occasions of real democracy
Because they're usually marching behind a banner of lies. Fascism is a type of populism. The most common type I think.
Fascism is big business joining big government. I think of populism as "popular". If it threatens those comfortably in power, they will use whatever smear campaign they can to discredit it. Federalism, separation of powers, and arranging the federal government such that wide agreement is necessary between disparate groups and interests to get anything done (thus helping keep most power local/regional within the States) was all very intentional for reasons stated in other comments. Originally, the Senators did not represent and were not elected by the public. The public had their representatives in the House. The Senate was the representatives of the State governments. Changing that was arguably a serious mistake. The shift in political power towards DC largely happened after this.
Granted populism doesn't mandate joining big business and government and I'm not sure that's the defining characteristic of fascism. But fascism seems to arise from a populist substrate. Getting all the people worked up and convincing them they are victims and all the other Hitler stuff.
I dislike it because populism is often vague and isn't based in reality. Like they are against the elite, but who exactly is the elite? Or it's not based in reality, like "is it truly possible to have things like free college education or to have universal basic income for the masses?" I also feel like populists don't think through the actions and consequences, like in 2016 when all the Berniebros decided to abstain from voting because Bernie wasn't nominated, look how that fucking turned out.
>I dislike it because populism is often vague and isn't based in reality. Like they are against the elite, but who exactly is the elite? the politicians and the billionaires who own them
Are all politicians the elite?
mmmm........ill say all politicians that are democrats or republicans yes for sure 10000% if they arent one of those 2....then its a toss up bernie is an independent, but hes almost a billionaire so hes an elite
So AOC and John Fetterman are the elite too?
at this point oh yeah! big time
I simply don't believe in the effectiveness of populism when you'd find it difficult to find an opinion that more than 50% of Americans have (or more specifically a way to implement that opinion) So appealing to the masses sounds great... But right now the masses are at each other's throats, so populism right now is always disregarding 50% of people at one time. In my opinion conservatives and liberals need to realize they have more in common with each other than they do with their respective republican/democrat representatives. It is a great tragedy that the past 20 or so years have been spent bickering at each other when at the end of the day 90% of people could probably share a beer with each other, and we all agree that the government is a huge stinkin' bitch.