3 ms·

> "The literature on <democratic governance> is divided on whether economic factors are significant and robust causes of <democratic governance>." Think of wha

> "The literature on <democratic governance> is divided on whether economic factors are significant and robust causes of <democratic governance>." Think of what a great country this could be if the only people allowed to vote in national elections were graduates of Ivy League schools. /s Looking forward to a literature meta-analysis of the economic factors leading to the rise of elitism and kleptocratic oligarchic rule in America - pretty sure the outsourcing of manufacturing and resulting reduction in domestic wages and rise in the billionaire count had a lot to do with it, along with the consolidation of ownership of media outlets (which is getting worse and worse) into a unified propaganda borg supporting the interests of the new American aristocracy.

kevingadd 3y ago
Limiting suffrage is a surprisingly popular point of view in the US these days. You can find high profile advocates for it with a lot of power/status, like Peter Thiel: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio... I won't dismiss all these arguments offhand, because there's a lot of valid things to be said about how poorly informed the average voter is. But it troubles me that a lot of people seem comfortable openly saying that maybe things would be better if Those People (substitute group of your choice) weren't allowed to vote, and I see those kinds of arguments from various points on the political spectrum, even if they are often just angry venting i.e. 'if retirees stopped voting that would fix things, since they want bad things' A specific example I've seen a lot is that climate change would have been fixed already if only The Olds weren't voting, since they (at least according to this PoV) are actively voting against climate measures since they'll be dead before the sea levels rise. Not going to express an opinion on this one.
- aylmao 3y ago
  I think this is worrying too, but if I wouldn't say it's something that's happening "these days", I would've say it's something that is happening "still". These ideas have always been present in the USA and around the world. But specifically in the USA, it's one of the reasons states decide their own voting laws. Nowadays it's relatively small rules like early voting and vote by mail, but historically it allowed the states a lot of power to limit suffrage to their linking. Even after women and PoC were given the right to vote, there was poll taxes and literacy tests in some states [1][2]. [1]: https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/voting-rights-timeline/ https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/voting-rights-time... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#Article_II_%E2%80%94_The_Executive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta...
aylmao 3y ago
As someone who is not from the USA, I think I missed the prerogative tone here, using the book definition of "populism" which is rather neutral: > a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. [...] the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people. (via Google) In which case, yeah, sounds like an obvious title. Ordinary people dislike globalization. But I think your read (and your take) are right. It's in the first line. This paper does seem meant to be read assuming "populism" means the manipulation of the masses, and with little regard to wether or not these masses are correct in their concerns.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I feel like the pejorative conotation is not just an american thing but a general historical thing. The usual implication of populism is that you are appealing to the base masses, who lack the knowledge to understand the implications of the policies, and don't understand how they will likely be negatively effected by the more subtle (or even overt) implications. Of course, that is very convinent to the aristrocrats whose power is threatened, but i still think there is a very clear implication with the word populism, that it implies something akin to letting a child eat as much candy as they want.
  - aylmao 3y ago
    I think you're right and it's not just an American thing, but this also is a connotation (vs definition) after all.

kevingadd 3y ago

Limiting suffrage is a surprisingly popular point of view in the US these days. You can find high profile advocates for it with a lot of power/status, like Peter Thiel: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/ https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio... I won't dismiss all these arguments offhand, because there's a lot of valid things to be said about how poorly informed the average voter is. But it troubles me that a lot of people seem comfortable openly saying that maybe things would be better if Those People (substitute group of your choice) weren't allowed to vote, and I see those kinds of arguments from various points on the political spectrum, even if they are often just angry venting i.e. 'if retirees stopped voting that would fix things, since they want bad things' A specific example I've seen a lot is that climate change would have been fixed already if only The Olds weren't voting, since they (at least according to this PoV) are actively voting against climate measures since they'll be dead before the sea levels rise. Not going to express an opinion on this one.

aylmao 3y ago
I think this is worrying too, but if I wouldn't say it's something that's happening "these days", I would've say it's something that is happening "still". These ideas have always been present in the USA and around the world. But specifically in the USA, it's one of the reasons states decide their own voting laws. Nowadays it's relatively small rules like early voting and vote by mail, but historically it allowed the states a lot of power to limit suffrage to their linking. Even after women and PoC were given the right to vote, there was poll taxes and literacy tests in some states [1][2]. [1]: https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/voting-rights-timeline/ https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/voting-rights-time... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States#Article_II_%E2%80%94_The_Executive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Sta...

aylmao 3y ago

As someone who is not from the USA, I think I missed the prerogative tone here, using the book definition of "populism" which is rather neutral: > a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. [...] the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people. (via Google) In which case, yeah, sounds like an obvious title. Ordinary people dislike globalization. But I think your read (and your take) are right. It's in the first line. This paper does seem meant to be read assuming "populism" means the manipulation of the masses, and with little regard to wether or not these masses are correct in their concerns.

bawolff 3y ago
I feel like the pejorative conotation is not just an american thing but a general historical thing. The usual implication of populism is that you are appealing to the base masses, who lack the knowledge to understand the implications of the policies, and don't understand how they will likely be negatively effected by the more subtle (or even overt) implications. Of course, that is very convinent to the aristrocrats whose power is threatened, but i still think there is a very clear implication with the word populism, that it implies something akin to letting a child eat as much candy as they want.
- aylmao 3y ago
  I think you're right and it's not just an American thing, but this also is a connotation (vs definition) after all.