4 ms·

Populism itself is not necessarily a bad thing if it is in the great American tradition of distrusting elitism and authority. However what we have instead is m

Populism itself is not necessarily a bad thing if it is in the great American tradition of distrusting elitism and authority. However what we have instead is manufactured populism funded by very wealthy people.

throwaway13337 8y ago
Most populist leaders in history have been members of the elite. Julius Caesar, after all, was far from poor.
beat 8y ago
The urge to populism is natural, a result of a sense of getting screwed over (which is actually happening). The focusing of that populist urge, on the other hand, is subject to exploitation by certain powerful elements. Don't confuse the two.
- ForRealsies 8y ago
  The perception of "getting screwed over" is largely just that, perception. Subjective and easily persuaded. You can have a US population with record low unemployment, record high stock market, and even if their personal income has increased, can still feel like they're "getting screwed over" due to Persuasion.
Nasrudith 8y ago
The problem is the sort of "elitism" they oppose. It isn't "the works of one who grew up poor's ideas should be considered on their own merit just like one who was born wealthy". It is "What do biologists know about vaccines? Numbers are soulless lets go with what feels right." Plus even if the populism is 100% natural it may still be exploited by any willing to use it as a ladder. Being "for the people" has made no difference vs "for religion" or "for our geopolitical grouping". Not helping matters is anti-elitism as a crab bucket mentality where they complain about the geographically near comfortable instead of the actual powers. Blaming the miller for their problems instead of their lord. Even when not hijacked populism often fails to actually fix anything, it may be its refusal to acknowledge reality in its groupthink and search for easy solutions, dislike of nuance and not wanting to hear that the things they had just aren't sustainable or what they would need to do to make it so.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  This used to be called demagoguery, and is very popular in dictatorships. Not only have physical and financial poverty increased in the West - the UK and US have non-trivial numbers of people literally starving to death - but so have poverty of education and poverty of opportunity. "The poor are lazy and deserve it" arguments are naive, irrational, self-serving - and a populist oversimplification themselves. The reality is that when education improves, nepotism and corruption are constrained, and wealth becomes more widely distributed and accessible, economies boom and the poor do much better - unless the growth is sabotaged by external influences, as it sometimes is.
  - jonbarker 8y ago
    Populism is 'supporting the concerns of ordinary people', demagoguery is 'apealing to popular desires and prejudices at the expense of rational argument'. Distrust of populism itself is misplaced distrust, since while these two concepts do appear at the same time on occasion, I'm not sure of a causal or even correlated relationship.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      I think it is more a matter of how populism is defined: the policies or the stated goal? Look at the USSR and the way they treated their workers. Taken for granted and undersupplied, given grandiose mandates to live up to from the uninvolved above to deliberately gives lung cancer to union leaders via minutes long xray. The USSR was "for the workers". The Technocrats weren't really scientific or engineering based, just a moronic faschiod cult which called for a power based currency and no interest or accumulation - ignoring the value of other inputs or accumulation of growth. And then there is all of the violence committed in the name of religions calling for peace.... The point is never trust the pretense. Populist movements/groups are untrustworthy by defining themselves by the pretense instead of the policy. This does not apply to some policies called populist. Moving up the bonus payment dates in the Great Depression, safer working conditions, raising the minimium wage, shorter hours, Roman land reform after the farmland had been illicitly shifted past the legal limits per owner, even more radical goals like Georgist "only the value of the land itself is taxed - scaled appropriately", shifting to direct democracy are all fine - a given policy may or may not work as intended but they are not an easy direct road for some megalomaniac to power. Populist groups are untrustworthy for the same reason as theocracies. It isn't operating upon the basis of say treating fellow man as a brother that is bad but the actual practices.

throwaway13337 8y ago

Most populist leaders in history have been members of the elite. Julius Caesar, after all, was far from poor.

beat 8y ago

The urge to populism is natural, a result of a sense of getting screwed over (which is actually happening). The focusing of that populist urge, on the other hand, is subject to exploitation by certain powerful elements. Don't confuse the two.

ForRealsies 8y ago
The perception of "getting screwed over" is largely just that, perception. Subjective and easily persuaded. You can have a US population with record low unemployment, record high stock market, and even if their personal income has increased, can still feel like they're "getting screwed over" due to Persuasion.

Nasrudith 8y ago

The problem is the sort of "elitism" they oppose. It isn't "the works of one who grew up poor's ideas should be considered on their own merit just like one who was born wealthy". It is "What do biologists know about vaccines? Numbers are soulless lets go with what feels right." Plus even if the populism is 100% natural it may still be exploited by any willing to use it as a ladder. Being "for the people" has made no difference vs "for religion" or "for our geopolitical grouping". Not helping matters is anti-elitism as a crab bucket mentality where they complain about the geographically near comfortable instead of the actual powers. Blaming the miller for their problems instead of their lord. Even when not hijacked populism often fails to actually fix anything, it may be its refusal to acknowledge reality in its groupthink and search for easy solutions, dislike of nuance and not wanting to hear that the things they had just aren't sustainable or what they would need to do to make it so.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
This used to be called demagoguery, and is very popular in dictatorships. Not only have physical and financial poverty increased in the West - the UK and US have non-trivial numbers of people literally starving to death - but so have poverty of education and poverty of opportunity. "The poor are lazy and deserve it" arguments are naive, irrational, self-serving - and a populist oversimplification themselves. The reality is that when education improves, nepotism and corruption are constrained, and wealth becomes more widely distributed and accessible, economies boom and the poor do much better - unless the growth is sabotaged by external influences, as it sometimes is.
- jonbarker 8y ago
  Populism is 'supporting the concerns of ordinary people', demagoguery is 'apealing to popular desires and prejudices at the expense of rational argument'. Distrust of populism itself is misplaced distrust, since while these two concepts do appear at the same time on occasion, I'm not sure of a causal or even correlated relationship.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I think it is more a matter of how populism is defined: the policies or the stated goal? Look at the USSR and the way they treated their workers. Taken for granted and undersupplied, given grandiose mandates to live up to from the uninvolved above to deliberately gives lung cancer to union leaders via minutes long xray. The USSR was "for the workers". The Technocrats weren't really scientific or engineering based, just a moronic faschiod cult which called for a power based currency and no interest or accumulation - ignoring the value of other inputs or accumulation of growth. And then there is all of the violence committed in the name of religions calling for peace.... The point is never trust the pretense. Populist movements/groups are untrustworthy by defining themselves by the pretense instead of the policy. This does not apply to some policies called populist. Moving up the bonus payment dates in the Great Depression, safer working conditions, raising the minimium wage, shorter hours, Roman land reform after the farmland had been illicitly shifted past the legal limits per owner, even more radical goals like Georgist "only the value of the land itself is taxed - scaled appropriately", shifting to direct democracy are all fine - a given policy may or may not work as intended but they are not an easy direct road for some megalomaniac to power. Populist groups are untrustworthy for the same reason as theocracies. It isn't operating upon the basis of say treating fellow man as a brother that is bad but the actual practices.