4 ms·

> It is the populists (which is what they are) core gambit to yell about something everyone thinks is bad and then just use that support to do whatever they wan

> It is the populists (which is what they are) core gambit to yell about something everyone thinks is bad and then just use that support to do whatever they want. If at this point in history we as human beings still cannot recognise this core tenet of how they operate we deserve what's coming to us. The mention of the word "populist" always puts me in a state of mild amusement coupled with a slight bewilderment. This word seems to have come into the public discourse relatively recently. Perhaps it's been there all along and I wasn't paying attention. More to the point I don't quite get what it means. It generally has a negative connotation associated with regardless of the context (e.g. Italy, Brazil, France, UK, etc). I consider the HN crowd to be enlightened. Perhaps someone can explain it to me in simple terms what exactly is meant by the word populist.

Radim 8y ago
Wikipedia is a decent start. Including the (inevitable) discussion of democracy-vs-populism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Democracy_and_populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Democracy_and_populis...
agentcoops 8y ago
In political science, the term populism has a long history of which I can only offer a small sketch. The paradigmatic cases are to be found in Latin American politics over the last century, especially the Argentinian leader Juan Peron [1]. In its classic form, the term is used to describe a wave of political parties who were neither pro-communist nor pro-capitalist, who found great success in countries that were both electorally democratic while also highly economically polarized. In countries that had traditionally been governed by a small cultural/economic/military elite, this new generation of political leaders began to win campaigns by vote-seeking from the disenfranchised through whatever means, typically through a combination of anti-status quo rhetoric and redistributive policies. This isn't just to suggest that they weren't "authentically" in favor of the poor or anything like that, but to understand how such a phenomenon can change the dynamics of democracies, where politicians are lead less by values (whether they be classically conservative, pro-market or socialist) than vote-seeking at any cost. It's also why we can find both "left-wing" and "right-wing" variants of populism, depending on exactly the types of rhetoric (anti-immigrant or anti-rich, for example) and policies (build the wall or tax the rich) that are employed. The phenomenon is heavily connected with what is called "clientelism", ie where politics becomes ruled by relations of patronage. Imagine a situation where a particular political party literally pays for membership, with the expectation of a vote and to mobilize for certain events. Such structures are not uncommon in rural areas of developing countries, where essentially feudal relations (think the same person, who conveniently owns all the land and employs everyone in an area, has been the mayor of a town for three decades) have been converted into seemingly democratic structures [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism_in_Latin_America [2] https://u.osu.edu/laspoliticas/2016/10/30/clientelism-in-latin-america-case-study-of-mexico/ https://u.osu.edu/laspoliticas/2016/10/30/clientelism-in-lat...
rayiner 8y ago
“Populism” is a new liberal epithet. It’s been reinterpreted to refer to common views of the “filthy masses,” among other things traditional views of self and people and place, as opposed to fealty to a trendy abstract liberal universalism.
- y4mi 8y ago
  Hitler was called a populist back then... very "new", indeed. it has always been used to describe people that just say whatever the masses want to hear, without actually doing anything to address the issues they campaigned with.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Liberal populism is a thing, and is a goal of hipster Democratic activists. But implicit in populism is a sort of rejection of pluralism, and a notion of some will of the people that transcends the political process, which is disquieting no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.
  - detcader 8y ago
    I think "populism" from us liberals is a euphemism for "whiteness," as in the socially constructed club called "whites." At least partially? I don't keep up with a lot of mainstream liberal writing these days. Liberal populism on the other hand implies American patriotism and belief in actual democracy, valuing the ever-varying "melting pot" above concentrated power in corporations, law enforcement and the executive branch, and above any social differences (I think. May be misreading you!)
    - pvg 8y ago
      I think "populism" from us liberals is a euphemism for "whiteness," This is just a very recent and inaccurate conflation with Trumpstuff. Al Gore's 2000 campaign was often described as 'populist'. It's a pretty gooey term.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      In ideologically pure liberalism, the “melting pot” is dead. We’re a salad bowl now.
tim333 8y ago
It's a bit ill defined but generally refers to politicians advocating whatever works with the crowd rather than policy that makes sense. 'Build The Wall' would be an example. Trump didn't use to have much of an opinion on that but it was a popular chant at rallies hence the present mess.

Radim 8y ago

Wikipedia is a decent start. Including the (inevitable) discussion of democracy-vs-populism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Democracy_and_populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Democracy_and_populis...

agentcoops 8y ago

In political science, the term populism has a long history of which I can only offer a small sketch. The paradigmatic cases are to be found in Latin American politics over the last century, especially the Argentinian leader Juan Peron [1]. In its classic form, the term is used to describe a wave of political parties who were neither pro-communist nor pro-capitalist, who found great success in countries that were both electorally democratic while also highly economically polarized. In countries that had traditionally been governed by a small cultural/economic/military elite, this new generation of political leaders began to win campaigns by vote-seeking from the disenfranchised through whatever means, typically through a combination of anti-status quo rhetoric and redistributive policies. This isn't just to suggest that they weren't "authentically" in favor of the poor or anything like that, but to understand how such a phenomenon can change the dynamics of democracies, where politicians are lead less by values (whether they be classically conservative, pro-market or socialist) than vote-seeking at any cost. It's also why we can find both "left-wing" and "right-wing" variants of populism, depending on exactly the types of rhetoric (anti-immigrant or anti-rich, for example) and policies (build the wall or tax the rich) that are employed. The phenomenon is heavily connected with what is called "clientelism", ie where politics becomes ruled by relations of patronage. Imagine a situation where a particular political party literally pays for membership, with the expectation of a vote and to mobilize for certain events. Such structures are not uncommon in rural areas of developing countries, where essentially feudal relations (think the same person, who conveniently owns all the land and employs everyone in an area, has been the mayor of a town for three decades) have been converted into seemingly democratic structures [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism_in_Latin_America [2] https://u.osu.edu/laspoliticas/2016/10/30/clientelism-in-latin-america-case-study-of-mexico/ https://u.osu.edu/laspoliticas/2016/10/30/clientelism-in-lat...

rayiner 8y ago

“Populism” is a new liberal epithet. It’s been reinterpreted to refer to common views of the “filthy masses,” among other things traditional views of self and people and place, as opposed to fealty to a trendy abstract liberal universalism.

y4mi 8y ago
Hitler was called a populist back then... very "new", indeed. it has always been used to describe people that just say whatever the masses want to hear, without actually doing anything to address the issues they campaigned with.
tptacek 8y ago
Liberal populism is a thing, and is a goal of hipster Democratic activists. But implicit in populism is a sort of rejection of pluralism, and a notion of some will of the people that transcends the political process, which is disquieting no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on.
- detcader 8y ago
  I think "populism" from us liberals is a euphemism for "whiteness," as in the socially constructed club called "whites." At least partially? I don't keep up with a lot of mainstream liberal writing these days. Liberal populism on the other hand implies American patriotism and belief in actual democracy, valuing the ever-varying "melting pot" above concentrated power in corporations, law enforcement and the executive branch, and above any social differences (I think. May be misreading you!)
  - pvg 8y ago
    I think "populism" from us liberals is a euphemism for "whiteness," This is just a very recent and inaccurate conflation with Trumpstuff. Al Gore's 2000 campaign was often described as 'populist'. It's a pretty gooey term.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    In ideologically pure liberalism, the “melting pot” is dead. We’re a salad bowl now.

tim333 8y ago

It's a bit ill defined but generally refers to politicians advocating whatever works with the crowd rather than policy that makes sense. 'Build The Wall' would be an example. Trump didn't use to have much of an opinion on that but it was a popular chant at rallies hence the present mess.