3 ms·

The location of the author doesn't really matter though, no? The mentions of non-US politics are about early XXth century pre-fascist European countries, otherw

The location of the author doesn't really matter though, no? The mentions of non-US politics are about early XXth century pre-fascist European countries, otherwise it only mentions US politicians/personalities (including an obscure, to me, official and Kirk). I'm not American, not even in a Commonwealth country, but I'd say that managing to mention Kirk while not mentioning the failings of American politics as a whole does indeed play right into the blinkered polarisation, for all intents and purposes. What did you think of the article?

bigbadfeline 11mo ago
> while not mentioning the failings of American politics as a whole I've never seen that mentioned by the left, right or anybody else, wherever they might be - nothing but spotty and one-sided critics. Do you really think your idea about that is of superior quality? You seem to like populism but that term has as many meanings as people talking about it, which makes talking about it entirely pointless. In other words, the devil is in the details.
- constantius 11mo ago
  So what I meant is: this article is sophistry grounded in US team-style politics, so the bias (or, uncharitably, manipulation attempt) has to be made explicit. I do frequently see articles/posts criticising the dreadful illusion of US democracy. They come from thinkers and activists who identify as being left (not liberal), mainly, but also anarchist, libertarian, independent, or simply anti-genocide. Here, I see an article that panders to one side, behind a veneer of sophistication and democratic ideals, and gestures at the ideology that is corrupt to 95% without mentioning once the one corrupt to 90%. > populism but that term has as many meanings as people talking about it Agree completely, but think the author reduces it to "bad thing for the unwashed" by not defining it.

bigbadfeline 11mo ago

> while not mentioning the failings of American politics as a whole I've never seen that mentioned by the left, right or anybody else, wherever they might be - nothing but spotty and one-sided critics. Do you really think your idea about that is of superior quality? You seem to like populism but that term has as many meanings as people talking about it, which makes talking about it entirely pointless. In other words, the devil is in the details.

constantius 11mo ago
So what I meant is: this article is sophistry grounded in US team-style politics, so the bias (or, uncharitably, manipulation attempt) has to be made explicit. I do frequently see articles/posts criticising the dreadful illusion of US democracy. They come from thinkers and activists who identify as being left (not liberal), mainly, but also anarchist, libertarian, independent, or simply anti-genocide. Here, I see an article that panders to one side, behind a veneer of sophistication and democratic ideals, and gestures at the ideology that is corrupt to 95% without mentioning once the one corrupt to 90%. > populism but that term has as many meanings as people talking about it Agree completely, but think the author reduces it to "bad thing for the unwashed" by not defining it.