May 22, 2024
What's So Bad AboutPopulism?
Richard Cronin
In a recent debate at Oxford, with Nancy Pelosi’s participation, the debate proposition was: "Is Populism a threat to Democracy ?” Former Speaker Pelosi stood on the side favoring the Proposition. That is, she holds that Populism is a threat to Democracy.
Winston Marshall stood in the Opposition describing in detail the failures of the Global Elites who have accrued great wealth through financial manipulation and favoritism (specifically, the bank bailout in 2007, under Dubya) as they also asserted abusive political powers. He cited how Donald Trump, a dedicated Capitalist, Entrepreneur, Nationalist, and Right-side Populist stood opposite from Bernie Sanders, a Left-side Populist and life-long Socialist who never held a private sector job in his life.
The Democrats will say "Ohh, no, no, no…… Bernie Sanders is on the fringe. He’s not even a Democrat. He’s an Independent who caucuses with us. He doesn’t really represent the centrist thinking of REAL Democrats. We have always worked across the aisle. We compromise and cooperate.”
So there you have it. Two Populists. One of them a consistent Socialist and crackpot vs. a Capitalist and Nationalist. Standing on the sidelines are hand wringing Democrats and old school Republicans who have been turned out by the Deplorables.
Tim adds:
What is the definition of populism? I'll bet they never defined it. Instead they simply tossed the phrase out there with dark undertones to make it sound sinister.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica describes it as:
"Populism, political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, by contrast with a real or perceived elite"
So how is that dangerous? It is "populism" because it is, uh, popular. That is the essence of democracy, something the Democrats tout (it's even their name) and yet now they reject it as a danger to "democracy". How so? It is the very essence of democracy.
As is pointed out here, there are all flavors of populists, from socialist populists to right wing populists. The only thing they all have in common is they support and pander to the majority and not the elites in power.
Sounds to me like exactly what the Democratic Party always claimed they wanted.
Strange how Populism was good when it was Harry Truman or Jimmy Carter and now it's bad when it's Donald Trump.
In a recent debate at Oxford, with Nancy Pelosi’s participation, the debate proposition was: "Is Populism a threat to Democracy ?” Former Speaker Pelosi stood on the side favoring the Proposition. That is, she holds that Populism is a threat to Democracy.
Winston Marshall stood in the Opposition describing in detail the failures of the Global Elites who have accrued great wealth through financial manipulation and favoritism (specifically, the bank bailout in 2007, under Dubya) as they also asserted abusive political powers. He cited how Donald Trump, a dedicated Capitalist, Entrepreneur, Nationalist, and Right-side Populist stood opposite from Bernie Sanders, a Left-side Populist and life-long Socialist who never held a private sector job in his life.
The Democrats will say "Ohh, no, no, no…… Bernie Sanders is on the fringe. He’s not even a Democrat. He’s an Independent who caucuses with us. He doesn’t really represent the centrist thinking of REAL Democrats. We have always worked across the aisle. We compromise and cooperate.”
So there you have it. Two Populists. One of them a consistent Socialist and crackpot vs. a Capitalist and Nationalist. Standing on the sidelines are hand wringing Democrats and old school Republicans who have been turned out by the Deplorables.
Tim adds:
What is the definition of populism? I'll bet they never defined it. Instead they simply tossed the phrase out there with dark undertones to make it sound sinister.
The Encyclopedia Brittanica describes it as:
"Populism, political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, by contrast with a real or perceived elite"
So how is that dangerous? It is "populism" because it is, uh, popular. That is the essence of democracy, something the Democrats tout (it's even their name) and yet now they reject it as a danger to "democracy". How so? It is the very essence of democracy.
As is pointed out here, there are all flavors of populists, from socialist populists to right wing populists. The only thing they all have in common is they support and pander to the majority and not the elites in power.
Sounds to me like exactly what the Democratic Party always claimed they wanted.
Strange how Populism was good when it was Harry Truman or Jimmy Carter and now it's bad when it's Donald Trump.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:30 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think you hit the nail when you said that the Democrats claimed it at one point, and said that it was good, but now that they are headed down the path to tyranny, populism is bad. Certainly Trump is a populist and Biden is not, and that is easy to see; it's pretty much a matter of which one is constantly finding ways to get in peoples' way. Just as an example, Trump isn't the one telling us we'll have to stop using gas stoves in our kitchen.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at May 22, 2024 11:32 PM (aL7f6)
2
Exactly Dana. Trump is trying to give America what it wants - Biden what he thinks we need, which happily dovetails with what the elites want.
The Democratic coalition used to be heavily populist, promoting itself to labor union members, farm workers, school teachers, miners and lumberjacks, truckers, all the folks who worked with their hands or did modest paying jobs. Now it panders to the uber wealthy and the GOP has the working class. And suddenly populism is a "danger to democracy".
The Democratic coalition used to be heavily populist, promoting itself to labor union members, farm workers, school teachers, miners and lumberjacks, truckers, all the folks who worked with their hands or did modest paying jobs. Now it panders to the uber wealthy and the GOP has the working class. And suddenly populism is a "danger to democracy".
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at May 23, 2024 06:24 AM (9pVFQ)
3
What's So Bad About Populism? Populism, often characterized by its oversimplification of complex issues and divisive rhetoric, can have detrimental effects on democratic processes. However, in navigating today's digital landscape, finding reliable information is key. Thankfully, the best product review sites UK provide trustworthy insights, aiding informed decision-making.
Posted by: Keira Stevenson at May 24, 2024 01:59 AM (egRor)
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at May 24, 2024 07:56 AM (Zj9B5)
5
Spammer Keira Stevenson
Nice ChatGPT comment. But it is not true; there are wisdom in crowds. That has long been recognized and it was recognized by the Founding Fathers. And who says populist ideas are oversimplifications? Tax ccuts and deregulations have quite complex arguments in their favor and yet are "populist"ideas.There is nothing oversimplifying about an international policy that promotes American industry and American strength over an international order that wants a weak America so as to empower international groups that will not resist the bad guys out there. Is it oversimplification to look at the Iran Nuclear Deal - promoted by the elites - and point out it allows the Iranians to develop atomic bombs and seek to prevent that by killing the deal? That was a "populist" idea that flew in the face of the oversimplification of the elites. THEY wanted a deal so they could have a deal; didn't matter if it actually made us safer.
People who claim it is oversimplification do so because they cannot actually rebut the arguments made by so-called "populists" in many instances.
And divisive rhetoric? Who has been doing the divisive rhetoric for decades now? It's the elites who called Trump a Nazi, or lied when they claimed he was colluding with Russia. Do you believe for a moment that only populists use divisive rhetoric? You apparently have forgotten the things they said about Ronald Reagan, who could be characterized as a populist and was opposed by the elites. I guess you have forgotten how the names they callled him then.
So I ask again, how does Populism have "detrimental effects on democratic processes"? Since the democratic process is about ascertaining the will of the people and populism is by definition appealing to the will of the people, I would suggest it is those who are trying to suppress populism who are the REAL dangers to democracy. If you can explain exactly how and why this is "detrimental" by all means do so. But just saying it doesn't make it so.
Youassume the elites have superior knowledge, are better thinkers, and, well, superior to the masses. You are an elitist. Your assumption is the people in power are just better than the average man or woman.
Nice ChatGPT comment. But it is not true; there are wisdom in crowds. That has long been recognized and it was recognized by the Founding Fathers. And who says populist ideas are oversimplifications? Tax ccuts and deregulations have quite complex arguments in their favor and yet are "populist"ideas.There is nothing oversimplifying about an international policy that promotes American industry and American strength over an international order that wants a weak America so as to empower international groups that will not resist the bad guys out there. Is it oversimplification to look at the Iran Nuclear Deal - promoted by the elites - and point out it allows the Iranians to develop atomic bombs and seek to prevent that by killing the deal? That was a "populist" idea that flew in the face of the oversimplification of the elites. THEY wanted a deal so they could have a deal; didn't matter if it actually made us safer.
People who claim it is oversimplification do so because they cannot actually rebut the arguments made by so-called "populists" in many instances.
And divisive rhetoric? Who has been doing the divisive rhetoric for decades now? It's the elites who called Trump a Nazi, or lied when they claimed he was colluding with Russia. Do you believe for a moment that only populists use divisive rhetoric? You apparently have forgotten the things they said about Ronald Reagan, who could be characterized as a populist and was opposed by the elites. I guess you have forgotten how the names they callled him then.
So I ask again, how does Populism have "detrimental effects on democratic processes"? Since the democratic process is about ascertaining the will of the people and populism is by definition appealing to the will of the people, I would suggest it is those who are trying to suppress populism who are the REAL dangers to democracy. If you can explain exactly how and why this is "detrimental" by all means do so. But just saying it doesn't make it so.
Youassume the elites have superior knowledge, are better thinkers, and, well, superior to the masses. You are an elitist. Your assumption is the people in power are just better than the average man or woman.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at May 24, 2024 07:57 AM (Zj9B5)
6
I really appreciate the depth of information in this post. Keep up the good work! duplex in gwalior
Posted by: Db city at May 28, 2024 01:11 AM (OLvgN)
7
I learned a lot from this post. Thanks! smm panel india
Posted by: SMM Bear at May 28, 2024 01:51 AM (0o5Nk)
26kb generated in CPU 0.7255, elapsed 1.5743 seconds.
37 queries taking 1.5372 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 1.5372 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
