7 ms·

I'm sure you can look up the dictionary definition like everyone else, and it won't mention anything similar to "democracy", but if you want one from a random i

by inejge 1y ago

I'm sure you can look up the dictionary definition like everyone else, and it won't mention anything similar to "democracy", but if you want one from a random internet person: it's pandering to discontent and fear of some portion of the populace. The populist implies that he or she represents the interests of that populace and has solutions to their problems. Of course it is never that easy.

leereeves 1y ago
Everyone not already in power who wants to be elected tries to appeal to those who are unhappy with the current government. How do you decide if they are "pandering to discontent and fear of some portion of the populace" or "standing up for neglected people"?
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  I think that populism has an element of "tear the system down", which is something that goes considerably further than the usual "throw those bums out". When Biden ran against Trump, he tried to appeal to voters who were unhappy with Trump, but nobody called him a populist. He was just a normal politician. Trump isn't. Neither is Bernie Sanders. How do you decide? I can't give you a clear answer there. Still, there is a difference. (Maybe "do they talk like a normal politician"?) Most out-of-office politicians are on the Biden side; only a few are on the Trump/Sanders side.
  - leereeves 1y ago
    If by "tear the system down" you mean anti-establishment and anti-elite, I agree. That's an essential component of populism. I don't think many people would say Biden was anti-establishment. In 2020, Trump hadn't been in office long enough to change the establishment very much.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > Most out-of-office politicians are on the Biden side; only a few are on the Trump/Sanders side. At least on the GOP side, it’s because they care only about cheap labor. Free trade to harness cheap labor abroad, and mass immigration to harness cheap labor for what can’t be outsourced.
- detaro 1y ago
  Having evidence that the fears are based in reality and proposed policies that would help said people is a point for the latter, obvious contradictions in those one for the former. Proposed policies being realistic vs vague broad strokes that are unlikely to be legal to implement would be another indicative axis.
  - hardlianotion 1y ago
    I suspect that having "obvious contradictions" in policies is an extremely high bar for modern political groupings generally - ie all political parties and their leaders are populist now.
    - detaro 1y ago
      It's certainly not an uncommon trait, although there are still large differences in degree.
rayiner 1y ago
> it's pandering to discontent and fear of some portion of the populace. The populist implies that he or she represents the interests of that populace and has solutions to their problems. That’s just democracy! Your definition seems to have an unstated premise: you think certain kinds of “fear and discontent” are legitimate, and others aren’t. But the whole point of democracy is that it’s a mechanism for the people to resolve questions like that. What you’re really drawing is the distinction between republicanism and democracy. You want elites to decide what the important issues are and propose solutions, and voting to be limited to picking between those approved worldviews. That’s republicanism! That’s the system the founders created when we had states appoint electors and senators, and a limited franchise.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- notahacker 1y ago
  > You want elites to decide what the important issues are and propose solutions, and voting to be limited to picking between those approved worldviews. I'm not sure the OP said anything that implied they wanted this, but on the other hand it's unambiguously true that many politicians characterised as "populist" do want this upon getting into power. It's just that their justification for interfering with court cases or removing elected officials who disagree with them or banning opposition altogether is "they represent the elites/immigrants/Jews but I am on your side", which distinguishes them from people justifying similar actions on the basis of national identity or religion or divine right or technocracy...
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > many politicians characterised as "populist" do want this upon getting into power Your statement makes no sense. The elected politicians are the ones who are supposed to be deciding the political issues. The problem is that, throughout the western world, judges and bureaucrats are not staying in their lane. The New York Times did a good podcast on how the immigration system we have is one that nobody ever campaigned on or voted for: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi.... The immigration system has been created through litigation and bureaucratic action--e.g,, taking an asylum system enacted in response to Jews fleeing genocide and applying the eligibility criteria so broadly that it covers general unrest in a country, or even just crime and gang violence. Don’t forget, the judicial system is quite consciously an anti-democratic check. judges were put there to make sure that voters don’t vote themselves other people‘s property. That’s a legitimate function, but you have to keep an eye on it. The more and more issues you have decided by judges the less and less democratic your system becomes.

by inejge 1y ago

leereeves 1y ago

Everyone not already in power who wants to be elected tries to appeal to those who are unhappy with the current government. How do you decide if they are "pandering to discontent and fear of some portion of the populace" or "standing up for neglected people"?

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
I think that populism has an element of "tear the system down", which is something that goes considerably further than the usual "throw those bums out". When Biden ran against Trump, he tried to appeal to voters who were unhappy with Trump, but nobody called him a populist. He was just a normal politician. Trump isn't. Neither is Bernie Sanders. How do you decide? I can't give you a clear answer there. Still, there is a difference. (Maybe "do they talk like a normal politician"?) Most out-of-office politicians are on the Biden side; only a few are on the Trump/Sanders side.
- leereeves 1y ago
  If by "tear the system down" you mean anti-establishment and anti-elite, I agree. That's an essential component of populism. I don't think many people would say Biden was anti-establishment. In 2020, Trump hadn't been in office long enough to change the establishment very much.
- rayiner 1y ago
  > Most out-of-office politicians are on the Biden side; only a few are on the Trump/Sanders side. At least on the GOP side, it’s because they care only about cheap labor. Free trade to harness cheap labor abroad, and mass immigration to harness cheap labor for what can’t be outsourced.
detaro 1y ago
Having evidence that the fears are based in reality and proposed policies that would help said people is a point for the latter, obvious contradictions in those one for the former. Proposed policies being realistic vs vague broad strokes that are unlikely to be legal to implement would be another indicative axis.
- hardlianotion 1y ago
  I suspect that having "obvious contradictions" in policies is an extremely high bar for modern political groupings generally - ie all political parties and their leaders are populist now.
  - detaro 1y ago
    It's certainly not an uncommon trait, although there are still large differences in degree.

rayiner 1y ago

> it's pandering to discontent and fear of some portion of the populace. The populist implies that he or she represents the interests of that populace and has solutions to their problems. That’s just democracy! Your definition seems to have an unstated premise: you think certain kinds of “fear and discontent” are legitimate, and others aren’t. But the whole point of democracy is that it’s a mechanism for the people to resolve questions like that. What you’re really drawing is the distinction between republicanism and democracy. You want elites to decide what the important issues are and propose solutions, and voting to be limited to picking between those approved worldviews. That’s republicanism! That’s the system the founders created when we had states appoint electors and senators, and a limited franchise.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
notahacker 1y ago
> You want elites to decide what the important issues are and propose solutions, and voting to be limited to picking between those approved worldviews. I'm not sure the OP said anything that implied they wanted this, but on the other hand it's unambiguously true that many politicians characterised as "populist" do want this upon getting into power. It's just that their justification for interfering with court cases or removing elected officials who disagree with them or banning opposition altogether is "they represent the elites/immigrants/Jews but I am on your side", which distinguishes them from people justifying similar actions on the basis of national identity or religion or divine right or technocracy...
- rayiner 1y ago
  > many politicians characterised as "populist" do want this upon getting into power Your statement makes no sense. The elected politicians are the ones who are supposed to be deciding the political issues. The problem is that, throughout the western world, judges and bureaucrats are not staying in their lane. The New York Times did a good podcast on how the immigration system we have is one that nobody ever campaigned on or voted for: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/election-immigration.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/podcasts/the-daily/electi.... The immigration system has been created through litigation and bureaucratic action--e.g,, taking an asylum system enacted in response to Jews fleeing genocide and applying the eligibility criteria so broadly that it covers general unrest in a country, or even just crime and gang violence. Don’t forget, the judicial system is quite consciously an anti-democratic check. judges were put there to make sure that voters don’t vote themselves other people‘s property. That’s a legitimate function, but you have to keep an eye on it. The more and more issues you have decided by judges the less and less democratic your system becomes.