3 ms·

That is true but you miss one thing. Populism depends on having problems. If people feel safe they don't need a strong hand in control. Populism creates proble

That is true but you miss one thing. Populism depends on having problems. If people feel safe they don't need a strong hand in control. Populism creates problems or do not solve them in order to exist. That's why there is a need to create "the enemy". That is exactly why people tolerate to-be-dictators like the evil-mustache guy. People needs to be afraid. Populism depends on fearmongering. This is why people like the evil-mustache German guy was able to work on his platform to have absolute powers.

kipchak 1y ago
>Populism creates problems or do not solve them in order to exist. Why is this unique to Populism? Most forms of power or organizations in general rely on there being a problem to solve.
- motbus3 1y ago
  You are probably right, my point is that Populism, and at least it, does need to perpetuate de problems, hence, no populist leader is/was ever effective. Not an answer but an appendix. There is common misconceptions on the definition of politics. For the masses politics means to define policies through negotiation and prioritisation. For politicians, it means something related to exert political power.
  - kipchak 1y ago
    I agree with the point that populists have a strong incentive to not solve problems, but I'm not sure that means populists can't be effective. For example in US history FDR was arguably a populist, and I would say pretty effective. And while the US populist party imploded fairly quickly, a good chunk of it's policy wants wound up happening in the next decade or two during the progressive movement.[1] Using the power definition of politics, it still seems to me that because the ability to exert power is only given when there is a need to be solved, a (for example) plutocrat has a similar incentive not to solve problems as a populist, and would be similarly likely to not be effective. I suppose an explanation that's consistent with both perspectives is that political leaders in general are not effective. [1] https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361/ https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361/

kipchak 1y ago

>Populism creates problems or do not solve them in order to exist. Why is this unique to Populism? Most forms of power or organizations in general rely on there being a problem to solve.

motbus3 1y ago
You are probably right, my point is that Populism, and at least it, does need to perpetuate de problems, hence, no populist leader is/was ever effective. Not an answer but an appendix. There is common misconceptions on the definition of politics. For the masses politics means to define policies through negotiation and prioritisation. For politicians, it means something related to exert political power.
- kipchak 1y ago
  I agree with the point that populists have a strong incentive to not solve problems, but I'm not sure that means populists can't be effective. For example in US history FDR was arguably a populist, and I would say pretty effective. And while the US populist party imploded fairly quickly, a good chunk of it's policy wants wound up happening in the next decade or two during the progressive movement.[1] Using the power definition of politics, it still seems to me that because the ability to exert power is only given when there is a need to be solved, a (for example) plutocrat has a similar incentive not to solve problems as a populist, and would be similarly likely to not be effective. I suppose an explanation that's consistent with both perspectives is that political leaders in general are not effective. [1] https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361/ https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5361/