3 ms·

What populist leaders have done since time immemorial is to rally large crowds by tapping into their desires. Trump does this handedly, as you can see from his

by zwkrt 5y ago

What populist leaders have done since time immemorial is to rally large crowds by tapping into their desires. Trump does this handedly, as you can see from his rallies. In Roman times such a person was called a tyrant, i.e. someone who gained power by exciting the populace directly, instead of farting around with the right senators and rich people. At some point to get a crowd going like that means you have to let go of your own convictions and “play the room” as it were, which is what the roman leaders didn’t like about it. Through trial and error the tyrant learns what incites applause and leans on those rhetorical devices as opposed to having a more coherent goal or plan. Comedians play the same game but for laughs. It’s the ultimate form of engagement optimization, and it works very well. A bad comedian will be booed off stage in minutes, likewise a would-be populist leader would get no traction if his statements fell flat on his audience. So what happens when “the room” is social media instead of a stadium? I can only imagine the sheer thrill of tweeting my thoughts and receiving 100000 replies in the same day. No less, SM would be directly aligned with my ultimate interest of gaining power, because SM companies are also interested in increasing immediate engagement. All this is to say that I don’t think trump is to blame for very much other than existing as the manifestation of a large number of peoples desires.

robbedpeter 5y ago
Tyrant never meant demagogue. Some tyrants were demagogues, some demagogues tyrants, but tyrant meant something very different than what you're saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant Trump was legitimately elected, and some might say that tyrannical overreach was prevented as many features of American checks and balances were tested. And mostly worked as intended.
proc0 5y ago
> populist leaders have done since time immemorial is to rally large crowds by tapping into their desires Isn't this what ALL politicians do? How do you know your side is not manipulating the masses... is it the tone or the choice of words? And to what lengths are you willing to go in order to "save" the country, when roughly half of the population voted in that direction? The risk exists on both sides -- the populists, and those who despise and see the populist as a threat and will go to ANY length in order to prevent them from gaining power. I think that those fighting against it can be blinded by their righteousness, creating an even greater risk of totalitarianism, in the name of preventing history from repeating. At the end of day, it's just politics, except one side is willing to remove all reservations in the name of "saving" the country. I am not convinced Trump was the threat he was meant out to be. He has been around for decades in the public eye, appearing on TV, even on CNN multiple times, yet he became a monster the moment he decided to run for office. That's a bit suspicious. Then it seemed everyone jumped on board without questioning what the mainstream media was selling, never looking back as to whether it was true or not (e.g. Russia interference was admittedly overblown and a LIE).
rsynnott 5y ago
> In Roman times such a person was called a tyrant That's ancient Greeks (Greek tyrants weren't necessarily populists, but they often were). Romans had the Populares, though not all Populares were populists in the modern sense.

by zwkrt 5y ago

robbedpeter 5y ago

Tyrant never meant demagogue. Some tyrants were demagogues, some demagogues tyrants, but tyrant meant something very different than what you're saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant Trump was legitimately elected, and some might say that tyrannical overreach was prevented as many features of American checks and balances were tested. And mostly worked as intended.

proc0 5y ago

> populist leaders have done since time immemorial is to rally large crowds by tapping into their desires Isn't this what ALL politicians do? How do you know your side is not manipulating the masses... is it the tone or the choice of words? And to what lengths are you willing to go in order to "save" the country, when roughly half of the population voted in that direction? The risk exists on both sides -- the populists, and those who despise and see the populist as a threat and will go to ANY length in order to prevent them from gaining power. I think that those fighting against it can be blinded by their righteousness, creating an even greater risk of totalitarianism, in the name of preventing history from repeating. At the end of day, it's just politics, except one side is willing to remove all reservations in the name of "saving" the country. I am not convinced Trump was the threat he was meant out to be. He has been around for decades in the public eye, appearing on TV, even on CNN multiple times, yet he became a monster the moment he decided to run for office. That's a bit suspicious. Then it seemed everyone jumped on board without questioning what the mainstream media was selling, never looking back as to whether it was true or not (e.g. Russia interference was admittedly overblown and a LIE).

rsynnott 5y ago

> In Roman times such a person was called a tyrant That's ancient Greeks (Greek tyrants weren't necessarily populists, but they often were). Romans had the Populares, though not all Populares were populists in the modern sense.