3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoI think you're right and it's not just an American thing, but this also is a connotation (vs definition) after all.