3 ms·

This is the most important worry. Populism from the far right has adopted a strategy of re-defining key terms such as nation, citizen, fairness, representation

This is the most important worry. Populism from the far right has adopted a strategy of re-defining key terms such as nation, citizen, fairness, representation. Under these conditions, a highly diverse council will either not be able to decide or will need to decide in favor of maximum leniency. By the way, Adam Curtis made this point in his documentary "HyperNormalisation", where he argued that Trump had hijacked "fair and balanced" reporting.

denton-scratch 4y ago
Redefining terms seems new, but it's a traditional rhetorical tactic. I think it's on the uprise. I think it's a sneaky, deceptive tactic. I'm a big admirer of Adam Curtis's films!
- uniqueuid 4y ago
  True, it's not entirely new. But re-defining concepts that are fundamental to democracy has bad consequences. Jan-Werner Müller has written about this in his book "Democracy Works": “Now, it’s true that populists, when in opposition, criticize sitting governments (and, usually, also other parties). But, above all, they do something else, and that is crucial: in one way or another, they claim that they, and only they, represent what they often refer to as the “real people” or also the “silent majority.” At first sight, this might not look particularly nefarious; it does not immediately amount to, let’s say, racism or a fanatical hatred of the European Union or, for that matter, the declaring of judges and particular media “enemies of the people.” And yet this claim to a distinctly moral monopoly of representation has two detrimental consequences for democracy. Rather obviously, once populists assert that only they represent the people, they also charge that all other contenders for office are fundamentally illegitimate. This is never just a matter of disputes about policy, or even about values; such disagreements, after all, are completely normal and, ideally, even productive in a democratic polity. Rather, populists assert that their rivals are corrupt and simply fail to serve the interests of the people on account of their bad, or indeed “crooked,” character. ”
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

denton-scratch 4y ago

Redefining terms seems new, but it's a traditional rhetorical tactic. I think it's on the uprise. I think it's a sneaky, deceptive tactic. I'm a big admirer of Adam Curtis's films!

uniqueuid 4y ago
True, it's not entirely new. But re-defining concepts that are fundamental to democracy has bad consequences. Jan-Werner Müller has written about this in his book "Democracy Works": “Now, it’s true that populists, when in opposition, criticize sitting governments (and, usually, also other parties). But, above all, they do something else, and that is crucial: in one way or another, they claim that they, and only they, represent what they often refer to as the “real people” or also the “silent majority.” At first sight, this might not look particularly nefarious; it does not immediately amount to, let’s say, racism or a fanatical hatred of the European Union or, for that matter, the declaring of judges and particular media “enemies of the people.” And yet this claim to a distinctly moral monopoly of representation has two detrimental consequences for democracy. Rather obviously, once populists assert that only they represent the people, they also charge that all other contenders for office are fundamentally illegitimate. This is never just a matter of disputes about policy, or even about values; such disagreements, after all, are completely normal and, ideally, even productive in a democratic polity. Rather, populists assert that their rivals are corrupt and simply fail to serve the interests of the people on account of their bad, or indeed “crooked,” character. ”

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]