3 ms·

Populism is merely a word to discredit something that a lot of people like, that those in power do not. That is not to say that I agree with everything labeled

Populism is merely a word to discredit something that a lot of people like, that those in power do not. That is not to say that I agree with everything labeled 'populist'. I don't even think it's a left vs right thing, even if that's how it plays out now. I guarantee you if there was a broadly popular left-wing movement that actually threatened those in power, the media would label it populist as well.

Udik 8y ago
Populism is a precise way of appealing to basic emotions of a population by creating an "us vs them" narrative. You find an enemy, tell the people that the enemy is causing all their troubles and that you're the only cure because you're the only one on the people's side. Then when your supposed cure doesn't work, you find a new enemy to blame for your failure. It's stupid and incredibly dangerous.
- HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
  Populism is a precise way of appealing to basic emotions of a population by creating an "us vs them" narrative. You find an enemy, tell the people that the enemy is causing all their troubles and that you're the only cure because you're the only one on the people's side. With a bit of perspective it's easy to see that this broadly describes socialism - which is the parents point. Socialism and social democracy is not commonly derided as 'populist'.
- hanoz 8y ago
  But when those in power are the enemy of the people, then your definition is indistinguishable from your parent post's definition.
- tomp 8y ago
  > Populism is a precise way of appealing to basic emotions of a population by creating an "us vs them" narrative Doesn't calling right-wingers "populists" do the very same?
  - dane-pgp 8y ago
    When I see (right-wing) "populists" being condemned, the "us vs them" narrative is that "them" is a small number of political figures who are using populism as a strategy for gaining power. Hence why, in the statement you quote, populism is a means of "appealing to ... a population", and is not a political identity in the same way as "liberalism" or "conservatism". There is a big qualitative (not just quantitative) difference between condemning a few manipulative politicians, and condemning, say, an entire ethnic group or rival political party.
    - tomp 8y ago
      Not sure I agree... e.g. Donald Trump (a "populist") was mocking mainstream politicians etc ("drain the swamp") a lot of the time, whereas Hillary Clinton (a "liberal") had something to say about "deplorables"... These are just example, I'm sure there are plenty examples the other way, but I'm just saying that your claim isn't very correct.
      - dane-pgp 8y ago
        Those are useful counter-examples, so thank you for pointing them out. It's true that Trump has mocked mainstream politicians, and this is probably equivalent to non-populists condemning populist politicians. I suppose one could argue that a critic of populist politicians is hypocritical if they also condemn Trump for mocking mainstream politicians, but I don't know of any examples of such criticism. (It might also be worth noting that this particular phrase was used by, among others, Nancy Pelosi in 2006). As for the "deplorables" quote, I don't want to defend it; however, to substantiate my point about qualitative and quantitative differences, I have to mention that in the infamous sound bite she said that "half" of Trump's supporters could be placed in that basket, and then later regretted specifying "half". (In previous speeches she apparently made it clearer that these supporters were only a small fraction). Politicians of any affiliation are prone to highlighting the extremists among their opponent's followers (likely due to the psychological biases of Group Attribution Error and Ultimate Attribution Error, or, more cynically, due to a desire to exploit those biases) as a way to tarnish people's opinion of that opponent. That is a problem no matter which politician is doing it, but I still think that the bigger problem is a politician targeting groups of people based on immutable characteristics like ethnicity (or institutions like the media).
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
They did - Bernie Sanders.

Udik 8y ago

Populism is a precise way of appealing to basic emotions of a population by creating an "us vs them" narrative. You find an enemy, tell the people that the enemy is causing all their troubles and that you're the only cure because you're the only one on the people's side. Then when your supposed cure doesn't work, you find a new enemy to blame for your failure. It's stupid and incredibly dangerous.

HumanDrivenDev 8y ago
Populism is a precise way of appealing to basic emotions of a population by creating an "us vs them" narrative. You find an enemy, tell the people that the enemy is causing all their troubles and that you're the only cure because you're the only one on the people's side. With a bit of perspective it's easy to see that this broadly describes socialism - which is the parents point. Socialism and social democracy is not commonly derided as 'populist'.
hanoz 8y ago
But when those in power are the enemy of the people, then your definition is indistinguishable from your parent post's definition.
tomp 8y ago
> Populism is a precise way of appealing to basic emotions of a population by creating an "us vs them" narrative Doesn't calling right-wingers "populists" do the very same?
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  When I see (right-wing) "populists" being condemned, the "us vs them" narrative is that "them" is a small number of political figures who are using populism as a strategy for gaining power. Hence why, in the statement you quote, populism is a means of "appealing to ... a population", and is not a political identity in the same way as "liberalism" or "conservatism". There is a big qualitative (not just quantitative) difference between condemning a few manipulative politicians, and condemning, say, an entire ethnic group or rival political party.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Not sure I agree... e.g. Donald Trump (a "populist") was mocking mainstream politicians etc ("drain the swamp") a lot of the time, whereas Hillary Clinton (a "liberal") had something to say about "deplorables"... These are just example, I'm sure there are plenty examples the other way, but I'm just saying that your claim isn't very correct.
    - dane-pgp 8y ago
      Those are useful counter-examples, so thank you for pointing them out. It's true that Trump has mocked mainstream politicians, and this is probably equivalent to non-populists condemning populist politicians. I suppose one could argue that a critic of populist politicians is hypocritical if they also condemn Trump for mocking mainstream politicians, but I don't know of any examples of such criticism. (It might also be worth noting that this particular phrase was used by, among others, Nancy Pelosi in 2006). As for the "deplorables" quote, I don't want to defend it; however, to substantiate my point about qualitative and quantitative differences, I have to mention that in the infamous sound bite she said that "half" of Trump's supporters could be placed in that basket, and then later regretted specifying "half". (In previous speeches she apparently made it clearer that these supporters were only a small fraction). Politicians of any affiliation are prone to highlighting the extremists among their opponent's followers (likely due to the psychological biases of Group Attribution Error and Ultimate Attribution Error, or, more cynically, due to a desire to exploit those biases) as a way to tarnish people's opinion of that opponent. That is a problem no matter which politician is doing it, but I still think that the bigger problem is a politician targeting groups of people based on immutable characteristics like ethnicity (or institutions like the media).

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

They did - Bernie Sanders.