3 ms·

I had to look up populism to make sure: >A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

I had to look up populism to make sure: >A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite. The idea that the government is going to go after Facebook because it is used to fuel the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite is very scary.

dragonwriter 9y ago
You need to read the rest of the Wikipedia article you quoted withoit attribution, and he recognize that a frequent use of “populism” without qualifiers is to refer more specifically to authoritarian populism, particularly emergent authoritarian populism built around a mythologized virtuous people opposed by an equally mythologized evil “elite” (which often is not an actual elite, just a recognizable group around whom a conspiracy theory of behind-the-scenes power has been constructed.)
- ihsw2 9y ago
  Indeed, while it is in vogue to label "Caucasians" and "males" as oppressors in modern Marxist parlance, the same mechanism is used to justify genocide in other parts of the world. Judging people for what they are rather than what they do is the stuff only the likes of Hitler and Stalin can dream up.
  - dang 9y ago
    We've already asked you to stop using HN for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for! Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on?
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  How is that different from a democracy that was founded in opposition to monarch or dictator like the USA? From the wiki on Populism: >Populism is most common in democratic nations and political scientist Cas Mudde wrote: "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?".[6]
  - notahacker 9y ago
    The populist rhetorical device of directing mass public hatred against a particular target is used at least as easily by dictators - aspirant or actual - as against them, particularly when it relies on open communication to flourish. Sure, populist upheaval can lead to American Revolutions. But it can just as easily lead to pogroms, and one of those patterns is repeated far more often throughout history than the others.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  That's funny, I use DDG and when I searched "define populism" that's the result that came up from DDG itself, which they say came from Wordnik. https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism I disagree with your sense of unqualified populism implies authoritarian populism. In my experience it's used without qualifiers to describe both Trump and Bernie. I suppose whether you think those two are authoritarian probably depends a lot on your own political leanings. But generally it means "fight the power." Or in Trump's case, "drain the swamp [0]." Here's a NYT article that, having skimmed, seems reasonable to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/magazine/how-can-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-both-be-populist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/magazine/how-can-donald-t... [0]: This comment is not intended to confer any positive feelings towards Trump or imply that he did anything other than make the swamp even swampier. It was only in reference to his rhetoric
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    > I suppose whether you think those two are authoritarian probably depends a lot on your own political leanings. I think both the Trump and Bernie movements have some frightening populist characteristics. But between the two leaders, only Trump has been broadcasting blatant authoritarian messaging. That's not to say that Bernie would never engage in any authoritarian action if he were elected, but he's not made overt any authoritarian tendencies like Trump has.
  - denom 9y ago
    Perhaps a simpler definition of populism is to acquire power outside of traditional state institutions. What makes this a bit frightening is that those institutions cannot regulate the worse excesses of that leader.

dragonwriter 9y ago

You need to read the rest of the Wikipedia article you quoted withoit attribution, and he recognize that a frequent use of “populism” without qualifiers is to refer more specifically to authoritarian populism, particularly emergent authoritarian populism built around a mythologized virtuous people opposed by an equally mythologized evil “elite” (which often is not an actual elite, just a recognizable group around whom a conspiracy theory of behind-the-scenes power has been constructed.)

ihsw2 9y ago
Indeed, while it is in vogue to label "Caucasians" and "males" as oppressors in modern Marxist parlance, the same mechanism is used to justify genocide in other parts of the world. Judging people for what they are rather than what they do is the stuff only the likes of Hitler and Stalin can dream up.
- dang 9y ago
  We've already asked you to stop using HN for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for! Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use HN as intended from now on?
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
How is that different from a democracy that was founded in opposition to monarch or dictator like the USA? From the wiki on Populism: >Populism is most common in democratic nations and political scientist Cas Mudde wrote: "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?".[6]
- notahacker 9y ago
  The populist rhetorical device of directing mass public hatred against a particular target is used at least as easily by dictators - aspirant or actual - as against them, particularly when it relies on open communication to flourish. Sure, populist upheaval can lead to American Revolutions. But it can just as easily lead to pogroms, and one of those patterns is repeated far more often throughout history than the others.
Consultant32452 9y ago
That's funny, I use DDG and when I searched "define populism" that's the result that came up from DDG itself, which they say came from Wordnik. https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism I disagree with your sense of unqualified populism implies authoritarian populism. In my experience it's used without qualifiers to describe both Trump and Bernie. I suppose whether you think those two are authoritarian probably depends a lot on your own political leanings. But generally it means "fight the power." Or in Trump's case, "drain the swamp [0]." Here's a NYT article that, having skimmed, seems reasonable to me. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/magazine/how-can-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-both-be-populist.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/magazine/how-can-donald-t... [0]: This comment is not intended to confer any positive feelings towards Trump or imply that he did anything other than make the swamp even swampier. It was only in reference to his rhetoric
- jnbiche 9y ago
  > I suppose whether you think those two are authoritarian probably depends a lot on your own political leanings. I think both the Trump and Bernie movements have some frightening populist characteristics. But between the two leaders, only Trump has been broadcasting blatant authoritarian messaging. That's not to say that Bernie would never engage in any authoritarian action if he were elected, but he's not made overt any authoritarian tendencies like Trump has.
- denom 9y ago
  Perhaps a simpler definition of populism is to acquire power outside of traditional state institutions. What makes this a bit frightening is that those institutions cannot regulate the worse excesses of that leader.