5 ms·

What are the other possible vectors for influencing politics in a republic/democracy like the US. Now that I think of it, it seems like both sides are populist.

importantbrian 3y ago
> (specifically: it's the vector that rejects pluralism, divides the polity into "the people" and "the elites", and declares that a particular political agenda, in its entirety, represents the true will of the people) The elites vs the people distinction is usually the key characteristic of populism in most definitions. Populist movements also tend to be very anti-establishment. Many vectors for influencing politics don't involve viewing society as this battle between the people and the elites. For example, while it's true that left-wing populists exist in the US I wouldn't describe the current Democratic party as a populist party. It is more of an institutionalist party and they don't tend to attack elites, because most groups traditionally considered part of the elite support the party. This is in contrast to the current Republican party which very much casts itself as being opposed to the elite. All the rhetoric about battling the deep state and draining the swamp is very much populist.
- downWidOutaFite 3y ago
  It depends on your definition of elites. "Deep state" and "drain the swamp" is about attacking government elites but the same movement promotes less regulation and lower taxes for business elites.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    It doesn't matter who the elites are; it only matters that some notion of them exists. The key to populism is the claim that some political platform (left, right, religious or secular) represents the manifest will of the people in its entirety, and that any opposition to that platform is corrupt or elite-driven. If you're looking to understand the term by its opposition, the antonym of "populism" is "pluralism".
    - jjjjj55555 3y ago
      > represents the manifest will of the people in its entirety, and that any opposition to that platform is corrupt or elite-driven It's funny how this starts to sound more and more like just Marxism.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        No, Marxism is an political platform. Populism obviously isn't Marxism; there is right-populism (which is currently the most popular form).
jjk166 3y ago
"Hey all the experts who have studied this phenomenon in depth suggest we should do this" "According to this religious text, this is how we should be living" "This will be good for the economy and put more money in your pockets" "If we don't do this, the terrorists win" "Think of the children" While it is easy to get people to support doing what they already want to do, people's opinions can also be swayed. Further, while populist movements try to present their positions as widely held by the majority, oftentimes that's a bluff. It's usually the case that populists are really just a vocal minority.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  The condescension in your post is a good example of why someone might turn to "populism." A lot of people have lost trust in those experts and people who claim to know what's good for other people. They also don't appreciate being talked down to.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    Any condescension you read in my post is imagined.
tptacek 3y ago
It's entirely possible for two opposing sides in a polarized polity to both employ a populist strategy. How you'd see that happening is that the two sides would deliberately exclude moderates and centrists.
- leereeves 3y ago
  > the two sides would deliberately exclude moderates and centrists Which is exactly what's happening lately.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    If you say so. I'm a moderate (non-progressive) Democrat and feel perfectly at home in the party, but we don't have to agree. The "Democrat vs. Republican" thing is boring, and we won't get anywhere with it. But popularism vs. pluralism is a discussion we can have; there are left-populists to dunk on!
    - leereeves 3y ago
      You're not a politician so there's no need to for the party to exclude you. Moderates with actual power, like Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, have been excluded from the modern Democratic party. As Manchin said: "The bottom line is — will the middle speak up? Does the middle have a voice?"
      - tptacek 3y ago
        I don't love the way Twitter treats Sinema or Manchin (Sinema I could take or leave though!) but they are objectively two of the most powerful people in the party. I don't think this is a winnable argument. Look at the 2020 candidate field, and look who won. Look at the track record for Justice Dems over the past 3 cycles. We have a strategy, and it's "win the suburbs". I'm fine with it.
        leereeves 3y ago

importantbrian 3y ago

> (specifically: it's the vector that rejects pluralism, divides the polity into "the people" and "the elites", and declares that a particular political agenda, in its entirety, represents the true will of the people) The elites vs the people distinction is usually the key characteristic of populism in most definitions. Populist movements also tend to be very anti-establishment. Many vectors for influencing politics don't involve viewing society as this battle between the people and the elites. For example, while it's true that left-wing populists exist in the US I wouldn't describe the current Democratic party as a populist party. It is more of an institutionalist party and they don't tend to attack elites, because most groups traditionally considered part of the elite support the party. This is in contrast to the current Republican party which very much casts itself as being opposed to the elite. All the rhetoric about battling the deep state and draining the swamp is very much populist.

downWidOutaFite 3y ago
It depends on your definition of elites. "Deep state" and "drain the swamp" is about attacking government elites but the same movement promotes less regulation and lower taxes for business elites.
- tptacek 3y ago
  It doesn't matter who the elites are; it only matters that some notion of them exists. The key to populism is the claim that some political platform (left, right, religious or secular) represents the manifest will of the people in its entirety, and that any opposition to that platform is corrupt or elite-driven. If you're looking to understand the term by its opposition, the antonym of "populism" is "pluralism".
  - jjjjj55555 3y ago
    > represents the manifest will of the people in its entirety, and that any opposition to that platform is corrupt or elite-driven It's funny how this starts to sound more and more like just Marxism.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      No, Marxism is an political platform. Populism obviously isn't Marxism; there is right-populism (which is currently the most popular form).

jjk166 3y ago

"Hey all the experts who have studied this phenomenon in depth suggest we should do this" "According to this religious text, this is how we should be living" "This will be good for the economy and put more money in your pockets" "If we don't do this, the terrorists win" "Think of the children" While it is easy to get people to support doing what they already want to do, people's opinions can also be swayed. Further, while populist movements try to present their positions as widely held by the majority, oftentimes that's a bluff. It's usually the case that populists are really just a vocal minority.

jjjjj55555 3y ago
The condescension in your post is a good example of why someone might turn to "populism." A lot of people have lost trust in those experts and people who claim to know what's good for other people. They also don't appreciate being talked down to.
- jjk166 3y ago
  Any condescension you read in my post is imagined.

tptacek 3y ago

It's entirely possible for two opposing sides in a polarized polity to both employ a populist strategy. How you'd see that happening is that the two sides would deliberately exclude moderates and centrists.

leereeves 3y ago
> the two sides would deliberately exclude moderates and centrists Which is exactly what's happening lately.
- tptacek 3y ago
  If you say so. I'm a moderate (non-progressive) Democrat and feel perfectly at home in the party, but we don't have to agree. The "Democrat vs. Republican" thing is boring, and we won't get anywhere with it. But popularism vs. pluralism is a discussion we can have; there are left-populists to dunk on!
  - leereeves 3y ago
    You're not a politician so there's no need to for the party to exclude you. Moderates with actual power, like Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, have been excluded from the modern Democratic party. As Manchin said: "The bottom line is — will the middle speak up? Does the middle have a voice?"
    - tptacek 3y ago
      I don't love the way Twitter treats Sinema or Manchin (Sinema I could take or leave though!) but they are objectively two of the most powerful people in the party. I don't think this is a winnable argument. Look at the 2020 candidate field, and look who won. Look at the track record for Justice Dems over the past 3 cycles. We have a strategy, and it's "win the suburbs". I'm fine with it.
      - leereeves 3y ago