5 ms·

Is it really possible that from Me Too to Purdue to tech anti trust that we are really at the beginning of a true populist backlash against entrenched power? I

Is it really possible that from Me Too to Purdue to tech anti trust that we are really at the beginning of a true populist backlash against entrenched power? I am skeptical but there are many threads spinning here. (Also, to be clear, I think the current Warren tech-are-utilities thing is bozo)

nerdponx 7y ago
No. These high profile "takedowns" keeps hubris in check, and also keep the rabble happy while the rest of entrenched power carries on being entrenched and powerful.
adventured 7y ago
We're in the second inning actually, not at the beginning. It started with the post great recession, Occupy Wall Street movement. That was the first major populist movement in the US in the 21st century. Even though that largely failed to result in anything draconian (fortunately), the US banking system was brought under far stricter control. The Fed with the Treasury is capable of dictating almost everything about the businesses of the large financial institutions. Today the US financial system is by far the strongest and safest financial system of any major economy. It's due in part to that populist response after the crash. Trump's election was in fact also a massive populist backlash, against electing more of the same political dynasties (Clinton / Bush) that had come to rule the US. Trump defeated powerful, massively well-funded representatives of both entrenched dynasties to win the Presidency (which tells you just how dramatically voters were willing to reject a continuation of the old). Trump is the first populist President that the US has had in a century. Nearly every organization and individual that was part of the entrenched establishment was against Trump and he won regardless. And no matter what people think of Trump, his election will represent a permanent split with the past when it comes to the US political system. Things will never be the same, to put it mildly. AOC, as one example, is in Congress solely due to this cultural shift, new outcomes are possible (variations of Democratic Socialists were exceptionally rare in the past; they won't be rare in the near future). Obama was also partially responsible for and representative of this process that is underway; it's no coincidence he won immediately following the great recession crash, as the backlash and desire for a different direction is part of what made him possible (Hillary Clinton or McCain win that election otherwise).
- jacobush 7y ago
  Obama was also very populist. (I suspect at first he drank his own koolaid but that he was ground down from within.) Trump is the kind of populist you get when the first one fails. Trump has many former Obama voters.
  - electriclove 7y ago
    Obama promised Change but it was the same old machine. Trump is actually delivering Change (whether you see it as good or bad).
- choppaface 7y ago
  One thing missing from this narrative is that Trump lost the popular vote and that barely half of eligible voters even participated. That said, the seven faithless electoral votes do underscore a theme of disapproval during the 2016 election.
- code_sloth 7y ago
  > Trump's election was in fact also a massive populist backlash Trump lost the popular vote. It wasn't a populist backlash, it was a broken system.
  - electriclove 7y ago
    The system is broken, yes. But I think the point being made is that Trump received many millions of votes in spite of all Democrat and Republican contenders against him because of a 'populist backlash' against the status quo.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  Separately from your rhetoric, Trump has perpetrated many chances in law and practice that benefit really wealthy people, exactly like the Sackler. These include massive tax cuts for really wealthy people, and reducing fines and legal exposure for wealthy people. He's the opposite of a reaction to reign in wealthy people. He is a rabble rouser who uses his rhetorical power to make actions that at least in taxes and wealth only hurt poor, populist supporting people.
fucking_tragedy 7y ago
No, being wealthy means that the Sacklers belong to a class that our system is designed to protect. They will not face prison time, and they will remain billionaires even after the lawsuits and settlements. The only time someone who belongs to their class goes to prison is if they fuck with another rich person's money.

nerdponx 7y ago

No. These high profile "takedowns" keeps hubris in check, and also keep the rabble happy while the rest of entrenched power carries on being entrenched and powerful.

adventured 7y ago

We're in the second inning actually, not at the beginning. It started with the post great recession, Occupy Wall Street movement. That was the first major populist movement in the US in the 21st century. Even though that largely failed to result in anything draconian (fortunately), the US banking system was brought under far stricter control. The Fed with the Treasury is capable of dictating almost everything about the businesses of the large financial institutions. Today the US financial system is by far the strongest and safest financial system of any major economy. It's due in part to that populist response after the crash. Trump's election was in fact also a massive populist backlash, against electing more of the same political dynasties (Clinton / Bush) that had come to rule the US. Trump defeated powerful, massively well-funded representatives of both entrenched dynasties to win the Presidency (which tells you just how dramatically voters were willing to reject a continuation of the old). Trump is the first populist President that the US has had in a century. Nearly every organization and individual that was part of the entrenched establishment was against Trump and he won regardless. And no matter what people think of Trump, his election will represent a permanent split with the past when it comes to the US political system. Things will never be the same, to put it mildly. AOC, as one example, is in Congress solely due to this cultural shift, new outcomes are possible (variations of Democratic Socialists were exceptionally rare in the past; they won't be rare in the near future). Obama was also partially responsible for and representative of this process that is underway; it's no coincidence he won immediately following the great recession crash, as the backlash and desire for a different direction is part of what made him possible (Hillary Clinton or McCain win that election otherwise).

jacobush 7y ago
Obama was also very populist. (I suspect at first he drank his own koolaid but that he was ground down from within.) Trump is the kind of populist you get when the first one fails. Trump has many former Obama voters.
- electriclove 7y ago
  Obama promised Change but it was the same old machine. Trump is actually delivering Change (whether you see it as good or bad).
choppaface 7y ago
One thing missing from this narrative is that Trump lost the popular vote and that barely half of eligible voters even participated. That said, the seven faithless electoral votes do underscore a theme of disapproval during the 2016 election.
code_sloth 7y ago
> Trump's election was in fact also a massive populist backlash Trump lost the popular vote. It wasn't a populist backlash, it was a broken system.
- electriclove 7y ago
  The system is broken, yes. But I think the point being made is that Trump received many millions of votes in spite of all Democrat and Republican contenders against him because of a 'populist backlash' against the status quo.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Separately from your rhetoric, Trump has perpetrated many chances in law and practice that benefit really wealthy people, exactly like the Sackler. These include massive tax cuts for really wealthy people, and reducing fines and legal exposure for wealthy people. He's the opposite of a reaction to reign in wealthy people. He is a rabble rouser who uses his rhetorical power to make actions that at least in taxes and wealth only hurt poor, populist supporting people.

fucking_tragedy 7y ago

No, being wealthy means that the Sacklers belong to a class that our system is designed to protect. They will not face prison time, and they will remain billionaires even after the lawsuits and settlements. The only time someone who belongs to their class goes to prison is if they fuck with another rich person's money.