Looks Like There May Well Be A Populist President

[Kathianne]

I was thinking about Jesse Ventura not long ago, fitting I came across this:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/01/21/Trump-vs-Sanders-Get-Ready-Populist-Disaster

That worked out well for a state that was actually running quite effectively. He was gone fairly quickly though.

[Kathianne]

In the past few months, several have asked what is 'wrong' with populism. The inevitability is what is wrong aka slippery slope:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/20/sarah-palins-decision-to-let-populism-trump-principle-is-a-fatal-flaw/

[Gunny]

I was thinking about Jesse Ventura not long ago, fitting I came across this:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/01/21/Trump-vs-Sanders-Get-Ready-Populist-Disaster

That worked out well for a state that was actually running quite effectively. He was gone fairly quickly though.

He was gone quickly because he's an ass.

[revelarts]

I don't like the way populist seems to be defined as simply "anti-establishment" or contentless "tell it like I see it" cheer leading.
And it seems the term is a mild slur for anyone outside of the Democratic and Republican designated "safe areas". As if coloring outside of those lines for "too long" is dangerous.
And It doesn't seem to matter if the politician is factually correct in many areas or not, if he's not from the approved political stable with the approved scripts and prescriptions then he's a scary "populist".

[fj1200]

I don't like the way populist seems to be defined as simply "anti-establishment" or contentless "tell it like I see it" cheer leading.
And it seems the term is a mild slur for anyone outside of the Democratic and Republican designated "safe areas". As if coloring outside of those lines for "too long" is dangerous.
And It doesn't seem to matter if the politician is factually correct in many areas or not, if he's not from the approved political stable with the approved scripts and prescriptions then he's a scary "populist".

What's your definition of populist? Conservatism is coloring outside the lines of what is out there if trump and sanders are the nominees IMO.

[Gunny]

I don't like the way populist seems to be defined as simply "anti-establishment" or contentless "tell it like I see it" cheer leading.
And it seems the term is a mild slur for anyone outside of the Democratic and Republican designated "safe areas". As if coloring outside of those lines for "too long" is dangerous.
And It doesn't seem to matter if the politician is factually correct in many areas or not, if he's not from the approved political stable with the approved scripts and prescriptions then he's a scary "populist".

It matters if "you" are conservative amd the populists are an opportunist and a communist.

[Black Diamond]

It matters if "you" are conservative amd the populists are an opportunist and a communist.

I think I prefer the opportunist over the communist

[fj1200]

I think I prefer the opportunist over the communist

Interesting. You know what to expect from a communist... :poke:

[Gunny]

I think I prefer the opportunist over the communist

I prefer neither. I like Cruz for one reason .... he's a conservative AND doesn't play ball with the establishment. That's an ideal situation to me.

However, as Glockmail mentioned in another thread, the "I'm staying home if it ain't my boy" crowd is already showing up on the boards. He posts on more of them I do (since I post only here), so he'd know. But I DO recall the last two elections on others boards and you just can't get through to some people. Always looking at what they as individuals want and not the big picture -- 8 years of Obama. If Sanders wins, this country will never be the same again. I Hillary or Biden win, we get 4-8 more years of Obama.

[Drummond]

I think I prefer the opportunist over the communist

I think that I don't.

Britain's experience of Margaret Thatcher was that she did what she felt was right, sometimes over what the 'ordinary person' would've chosen. She didn't court popularity on matters of principle she believed in .. she set out her case, explained why it was right, then got on with things. She had much opposition to her policies, but was willing to defy it for the sake of what was RIGHT.

History records her as a truly great Prime Minister, even if the Left still hate her. As a conviction politician, she did what she had to do, and we were all much the better for it.

An opportunist will sway with the direction of public opinion, possibly to the extreme of outright spinelessness in the face of a threat, or a problem needing a specific, if UNpopular, solution to it.

The opportunist will bend to opinion, regardless of ultimate practicality. The communist will simply be authoritarian - telling people what they must think. A non-populist, for my money, is something removed from both extremes. Who will be a steady hand at times of crisis, someone who won't bend when things get bad.

'The Lady's Not For Turning' ... as Margaret famously declared. Such fortitude brought her three consecutive landslide victories.

[revelarts]

What's your definition of populist? Conservatism is coloring outside the lines of what is out there if trump and sanders are the nominees IMO.

you know, I don't think i like the term at all.
It's only used on politicians that people don't like as a way to marginalize them no matter the content of their campaigns. Or the successes or failures of their time in office.

Saying that Trump is an opportunist or is playing to the crowds on issues xyz are more honest attacks than the "populist" label.

If it can be used on those as diverse politically as Sanders, Trump, Perot, Ventura, etc etc.. then it really doesn't have much political meaning AT ALL. it doesn't describe any policies, it doesn't describe political philosophies. The only thing is speaks to generically is something that all politicians want and that's, POPULAR SUPPORT.
Was Reagan a "populist"? I suspect few would use that term even though he had very strong POPULAR support. but he was inside the camp so he's more acceptable and not just some "populist".

IMO it's a cheap shot of a term used by party loyalist. A term that masquerades as a legit political description.

[Gunny]

you know, I don't think i like the term at all.
It's only used on politicians that people don't like as a way to marginalize them no matter the content of their campaigns. Or the successes or failures of their time in office.

Saying that Trump is an opportunist or is playing to the crowds on issues xyz are more honest attacks than the "populist" label.

If it can be used on those as diverse politically as Sanders, Trump, Perot, Ventura, etc etc.. then it really doesn't have much political meaning AT ALL. it doesn't describe any policies, it doesn't describe political philosophies. The only thing is speaks to generically is something that all politicians want and that's, POPULAR SUPPORT.
Was Reagan a "populist"? I suspect few would use that term even though he had very strong POPULAR support. but he was inside the camp so he's more acceptable and not just some "populist".

IMO it's a cheap shot of a term used by party loyalist. A term that masquerades as a legit political description.

You're making way too much of this.

[Drummond]

you know, I don't think i like the term at all.
It's only used on politicians that people don't like as a way to marginalize them no matter the content of their campaigns. Or the successes or failures of their time in office.

Saying that Trump is an opportunist or is playing to the crowds on issues xyz are more honest attacks than the "populist" label.

If it can be used on those as diverse politically as Sanders, Trump, Perot, Ventura, etc etc.. then it really doesn't have much political meaning AT ALL. it doesn't describe any policies, it doesn't describe political philosophies. The only thing is speaks to generically is something that all politicians want and that's, POPULAR SUPPORT.
Was Reagan a "populist"? I suspect few would use that term even though he had very strong POPULAR support. but he was inside the camp so he's more acceptable and not just some "populist".

IMO it's a cheap shot of a term used by party loyalist. A term that masquerades as a legit political description.

All politicians naturally want popular support !! Only dictators are indifferent to it. But the difference between a 'populist' and a 'conviction' politician is that a populist will put popularity above other concerns, and as a result, risk a display of spinelessness.

I fail to see how Trump could be accused of populism. OK, he might strike a 'popular' note (or one he can be sure in his own mind qualifies, certainly) .. BUT .. by nailing his colours to the mast as he does, by sticking to his stated principles, he defies the 'please all' mentality vital to the 'populism' tag, it seems to me.

That is why you DON'T want a populist politician in power, and why it really does matter. A leader worthy of the name doesn't display a 'shifting sands' persona, and expect at the end of it to earn any long-lasting respect. And rightly so.

[fj1200]

you know, I don't think i like the term at all.
It's only used on politicians that people don't like as a way to marginalize them no matter the content of their campaigns. Or the successes or failures of their time in office.

Saying that Trump is an opportunist or is playing to the crowds on issues xyz are more honest attacks than the "populist" label.

If it can be used on those as diverse politically as Sanders, Trump, Perot, Ventura, etc etc.. then it really doesn't have much political meaning AT ALL. it doesn't describe any policies, it doesn't describe political philosophies. The only thing is speaks to generically is something that all politicians want and that's, POPULAR SUPPORT.
Was Reagan a "populist"? I suspect few would use that term even though he had very strong POPULAR support. but he was inside the camp so he's more acceptable and not just some "populist".

IMO it's a cheap shot of a term used by party loyalist. A term that masquerades as a legit political description.

That's the thing, there is no consistent definition for populist. Populist does not mean popular in my book by any stretch of the imagination. This might be a decent starting point:

Populism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) is a doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine) that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness) push against the prevailing status quo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo) interests of any predominant political sector

Populism doesn't have a definable starting point and just follows the whims of the people IMO but it isn't outside of logic to use the term if it fits; with trump I think it does. I wouldn't call Reagan a populist because he had a definable conservative ideology that he could explain very well; people good, government bad; and he could convince people of his beliefs.

[revelarts]

That's the thing, there is no consistent definition for populist. Populist does not mean popular in my book by any stretch of the imagination. This might be a decent starting point:


Populism doesn't have a definable starting point and just follows the whims of the people IMO but it isn't outside of logic to use the term if it fits; with trump I think it does. I wouldn't call Reagan a populist because he had a definable conservative ideology that he could explain very well; people good, government bad; and he could convince people of his beliefs.

Then Sanders doesn't fit your definition then.
He states plainly that he's a socialist and his policies follow that line.

But Romney might fit your description because in his home state he ran saying and doing one set of policies But as a presidential candidate he changed many of his views to follow the whims of the people he wanted to get votes from.

But whatever the definition it seems we agree that bottom line it assumes very negative motives and acts of what ever politicians the label's given too.

[fj1200]

Then Sanders doesn't fit your definition then.
He states plainly that he's a socialist and his policies follow that line.

But Romney might fit your description because in his home state he ran saying and doing one set of policies But as a presidential candidate he changed many of his views to follow the whims of the people he wanted to get votes from.

But whatever the definition it seems we agree that bottom line it assumes very negative motives and acts of what ever politicians the label's given too.

I don't recall calling him a populist myself but I know that he has been called as much. One can certainly have some populist rhetoric thrown in with their base ideology IMO. It's not above politicians to throw in some populist rhetoric when they give a campaign speech.

But yes, I do have a negative view of populists. I won't deny that. I've posted my definition of populists before:


Populists IMO are those with little understanding of the issues at hand and glom onto a solution merely because it is popular, or will appeal to the populace, and not because it is correct.

And:


Conservatism is an ideology, populism is merely rhetoric.

[Drummond]

That's the thing, there is no consistent definition for populist. Populist does not mean popular in my book by any stretch of the imagination.

I wonder if you argue just for the sake of it ? 'Populism' and 'popular' .. you think there's no link there ? Seriously ?

From your quote -


Populism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) is a doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine) that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as hopes and fears) of the general population, especially when contrasting any new collective consciousness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness) push against the prevailing status quo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo) interests of any predominant political sector

.. trust you to highlight 'collective consciousness', eh ... did it appeal to your Leftie thinking ?

Rather more to the point, what could be described here is a politician who defies a political status quo in order to court popularity in its place ... and such a politician would weight his or her conduct, statement of beliefs (- whatever -) less in the direction of Party doctrine or principle, and more towards just pleasing a lot of people.

I come back to my previous point. Such a figure would bend with the wind, just shift according to 'popular demand' .. which can equate to spinelessness, where a hard and steady line is called for, instead.


Populism doesn't have a definable starting point and just follows the whims of the people IMO but it isn't outside of logic to use the term if it fits; with trump I think it does. I wouldn't call Reagan a populist because he had a definable conservative ideology that he could explain very well; people good, government bad; and he could convince people of his beliefs.

No, with Trump, it cannot apply. When you take a hardline stance, you can't then reverse it without seeming to be considerably less than credible .. which is surely political suicide ? Trump doesn't want to damage his chances, but HAS taken some very hardline stances. He cannot therefore depart from them at will, should the public mood ever be against him (or have any chance of being so). So, Trump cannot qualify as 'populist'.

Likewise, I'd have thought, with Reagan, who was a conviction politician, just as Margaret Thatcher also was ?? OK, it's nice if they follow directions happening to command popular support - the two COULD dovetail - but, if they don't, no conviction politician can bend to public mood if that cuts against the stance taken.

Trump has no 'wriggle room' to 'bend', if public opinion changed. Nor should he, of course. Populist politicians carry inherent weakness with them and are best avoided.

.. But surely, FJ, as a 'conservative' yourself, you must see all of this to be true .. ? H'mm .. ?

[revelarts]

All politicians naturally want popular support !! Only dictators are indifferent to it. But the difference between a 'populist' and a 'conviction' politician is that a populist will put popularity above other concerns, and as a result, risk a display of spinelessness.

I fail to see how Trump could be accused of populism. OK, he might strike a 'popular' note (or one he can be sure in his own mind qualifies, certainly) .. BUT .. by nailing his colours to the mast as he does, by sticking to his stated principles, he defies the 'please all' mentality vital to the 'populism' tag, it seems to me.

That is why you DON'T want a populist politician in power, and why it really does matter. A leader worthy of the name doesn't display a 'shifting sands' persona, and expect at the end of it to earn any long-lasting respect. And rightly so.


That's the thing, there is no consistent definition for populist. Populist does not mean popular in my book by any stretch of the imagination. This might be a decent starting point:

Populism doesn't have a definable starting point and just follows the whims of the people IMO but it isn't outside of logic to use the term if it fits; with trump I think it does. I wouldn't call Reagan a populist because he had a definable conservative ideology that he could explain very well; people good, government bad; and he could convince people of his beliefs.

I just think a more honest term is a PANDERING politician... or something like that.

Populist seems like it's trying to say something "political" to me rather than just describing a negative METHOD of getting crowds on your side.

and again those who use the term often have to ASSUME the motives of the politician they are speaking of.
But the term is plastered on people as if it's a forgone conclusion of their political position.

"He's a Populist" "She's a populist" It's not framed as "In my opinion XYZ is a populist." They ARE a populist if any, writer, pudent, party hack or Joe Doe says they are.

FJ you add to the idea that those that are populist don't have a definable starting point.... that you can trace....
But to me a politician doesn't have to have an air tight all guiding philosophy. A politician can be sincere and only have firm grasp on 1 or 2 areas, say economics and social issues. But may be feeling their way to set views on some others like foreign policy.
If they are sincere in their search for a position and not pandering then in my book they shouldn't be lumped into the group called "populist".

So Basically it just seems to me that anyone who's popular and NOT from a party stable, and not following the party lines -issue wise- is PEGGED with that negative label.
I don't think it's a fair call even if i may not support the candidates.

As far as Trump Goes. I'm sure he's pandering to the crowd in certain areas, but I'll call it that. But also I think he's as sincere as a heart attack in other areas, thats what concerns me about him.

The fact that he's so popular is a sad commentary on the supporters of republican party IMO.

[Drummond]

I just think a more honest term is a PANDERING politician... or something like that.

Populist seems like it's trying to say something "political" to me rather than just describing a negative METHOD of getting crowds on your side.

and again those who use the term often have to ASSUME the motives of the politician they are speaking of.
But the term is plastered on people as if it's a forgone conclusion of their political position.

"He's a Populist" "She's a populist" It's not framed as "In my opinion XYZ is a populist." They ARE a populist if any, writer, pudent, party hack or Joe Doe says they are.

FJ you add to the idea that those that are populist don't have a definable starting point.... that you can trace....
But to me a politician doesn't have to have an air tight all guiding philosophy. A politician can be sincere and only have firm grasp on 1 or 2 areas, say economics and social issues. But may be feeling their way to set views on some others like foreign policy.
If they are sincere in their search for a position and not pandering then in my book they shouldn't be lumped into the group called "populist".

So Basically it just seems to me that anyone who's popular and NOT from a party stable, and not following the party lines -issue wise- is PEGGED with that negative label.
I don't think it's a fair call even if i may not support the candidates.

As far as Trump Goes. I'm sure he's pandering to the crowd in certain areas, but I'll call it that. But also I think he's as sincere as a heart attack in other areas, thats what concerns me about him.

The fact that he's so popular is a sad commentary on the supporters of republican party IMO.

Some good points ... though I definitely disagree with your last sentence (.. as would that stellar lady, Sarah Palin ..).

As to the part I've bolded - it really depends on what side of the fence the politician sits on, I'd have thought ? If a Leftie ... then adherence to the Leftie agenda is ALL ... the only real changes are in terms of sheer salesmanship. Lefties merely clone policies set out for them. Since the Conservative mindset is far more concerned with individual worth, so the individual can be more expressive AS one, not being tied to the letter of any agenda.

[fj1200]

I just think a more honest term is a PANDERING politician... or something like that.

Populist seems like it's trying to say something "political" to me rather than just describing a negative METHOD of getting crowds on your side.

and again those who use the term often have to ASSUME the motives of the politician they are speaking of.
But the term is plastered on people as if it's a forgone conclusion of their political position.

"He's a Populist" "She's a populist" It's not framed as "In my opinion XYZ is a populist." They ARE a populist if any, writer, pudent, party hack or Joe Doe says they are.

FJ you add to the idea that those that are populist don't have a definable starting point.... that you can trace....
But to me a politician doesn't have to have an air tight all guiding philosophy. A politician can be sincere and only have firm grasp on 1 or 2 areas, say economics and social issues. But may be feeling their way to set views on some others like foreign policy.
If they are sincere in their search for a position and not pandering then in my book they shouldn't be lumped into the group called "populist".

So Basically it just seems to me that anyone who's popular and NOT from a party stable, and not following the party lines -issue wise- is PEGGED with that negative label.
I don't think it's a fair call even if i may not support the candidates.

As far as Trump Goes. I'm sure he's pandering to the crowd in certain areas, but I'll call it that. But also I think he's as sincere as a heart attack in other areas, thats what concerns me about him.

The fact that he's so popular is a sad commentary on the supporters of republican party IMO.

I said populism doesn't have a definable starting point, an individual populist might have one. Populism would look at trade deficits and say we need protectionism. Populism would look at groups and say we need to ban them. I think populism looks at easy answers which are unlikely to be the correct answer. I think pandering is completely different; if you don't believe it but you'll say it to a group of constituencies then you're pandering; I think populists actually believe what they say.

[Black Diamond]

I said populism doesn't have a definable starting point, an individual populist might have one. Populism would look at trade deficits and say we need protectionism. Populism would look at groups and say we need to ban them. I think populism looks at easy answers which are unlikely to be the correct answer. I think pandering is completely different; if you don't believe it but you'll say it to a group of constituencies then you're pandering; I think populists actually believe what they say.
Trump has for years talked about trade deficits and "bad" deals like NAFTA. He ranted about them when he toyed with the idea of running for president in the past.

[Kathianne]

I said populism doesn't have a definable starting point, an individual populist might have one. Populism would look at trade deficits and say we need protectionism. Populism would look at groups and say we need to ban them. I think populism looks at easy answers which are unlikely to be the correct answer. I think pandering is completely different; if you don't believe it but you'll say it to a group of constituencies then you're pandering; I think populists actually believe what they say.

I agree with the idea that a populist candidate may stumble upon populism. Something is said, something happens, the 'people' declare a 'hero' and off we go. It's as much or perhaps more about the effect than the cause. It's self-feeding between the mob and 'leader.'

[Black Diamond]

I agree with the idea that a populist candidate may stumble upon populism. Something is said, something happens, the 'people' declare a 'hero' and off we go. It's as much or perhaps more about the effect than the cause. It's self-feeding between the mob and 'leader.'

Was Mussolini a populist?

[revelarts]

I said populism doesn't have a definable starting point, an individual populist might have one. Populism would look at trade deficits and say we need protectionism. Populism would look at groups and say we need to ban them. I think populism looks at easy answers which are unlikely to be the correct answer. I think pandering is completely different; if you don't believe it but you'll say it to a group of constituencies then you're pandering; I think populists actually believe what they say.
well not to run is conversation into the ground over definitions, (to late?)
But ok so you're saying part of being a populist is just promoting easy answers.

so if the answers easy it's populist? there are a LOT of candidates that propose easy answers. so again i don't see this definition as being very clear either.
People are sick and can't pay health bills = " gov't must give universal health care" =populist?
Saddam has WMDs = we must go to WAR =populist?
We were attacked on 911 = we must torture people and spy on every citizen to make it stop =populist?
Wages are low = gov't must increase minimum wage =populist?
People die in mass shootings = Ban all guns =populist?
the economy's slow = cut corporate taxes and regs =populist?
Abortion is murder = re-outlaw abortion = populist?
Israel is our "ally" = support them no matter what they do =populist?
Vacines are good medicine = everyone should be forced to take them or else =populist?

I still say it's often only described as "simply" or "correct" answers if it's OUTSIDE of the regular/current party playbook prescriptions.

When Bush agreed to a "fence" on the boarder he wasn't called "populist" i don't think.

to clarify and define it again i guess i'm saying:
people call OTHERS populist when they don't like their politics ("simple answers 'tut tut'"), and/or are pandering to the crowds, they're outside the party boxes in their proposals and party roots, and they are popular.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What's your definition of populist? Conservatism is coloring outside the lines of what is out there if trump and sanders are the nominees IMO.
Really? How are conservatives responsible for that idiot Sanders? No conservative would vote for that socialist bastard. And no conservative thinks that the worthless son of a bitchhh should hold any kind of public office, thats you and your kind all for that.

Do explain how conservatives are going to vote Sanders to be the nominee? -Tyr

[Gunny]

Then Sanders doesn't fit your definition then.
He states plainly that he's a socialist and his policies follow that line.

But Romney might fit your description because in his home state he ran saying and doing one set of policies But as a presidential candidate he changed many of his views to follow the whims of the people he wanted to get votes from.

But whatever the definition it seems we agree that bottom line it assumes very negative motives and acts of what ever politicians the label's given too.

By definition, Sanders fits to a tee. He's even further left than your average leftwingnut Democrat. Hard to believe, I know. While his goals may seem lofty to some, most of his support from the population (as opposed to ppoularity) comes from those who are more than willing to take more of what YOU earned and give it to their do-nothing butts.

[Gunny]

I wonder if you argue just for the sake of it ? 'Populism' and 'popular' .. you think there's no link there ? Seriously ?

From your quote -



.. trust you to highlight 'collective consciousness', eh ... did it appeal to your Leftie thinking ?

Rather more to the point, what could be described here is a politician who defies a political status quo in order to court popularity in its place ... and such a politician would weight his or her conduct, statement of beliefs (- whatever -) less in the direction of Party doctrine or principle, and more towards just pleasing a lot of people.

I come back to my previous point. Such a figure would bend with the wind, just shift according to 'popular demand' .. which can equate to spinelessness, where a hard and steady line is called for, instead.



No, with Trump, it cannot apply. When you take a hardline stance, you can't then reverse it without seeming to be considerably less than credible .. which is surely political suicide ? Trump doesn't want to damage his chances, but HAS taken some very hardline stances. He cannot therefore depart from them at will, should the public mood ever be against him (or have any chance of being so). So, Trump cannot qualify as 'populist'.

Likewise, I'd have thought, with Reagan, who was a conviction politician, just as Margaret Thatcher also was ?? OK, it's nice if they follow directions happening to command popular support - the two COULD dovetail - but, if they don't, no conviction politician can bend to public mood if that cuts against the stance taken.

Trump has no 'wriggle room' to 'bend', if public opinion changed. Nor should he, of course. Populist politicians carry inherent weakness with them and are best avoided.

.. But surely, FJ, as a 'conservative' yourself, you must see all of this to be true .. ? H'mm .. ?

The word populist is derived from "population", not "popular." That "pop" appears in both words is an unfortunate circumstance to give people on message boards something to argue about. :laugh:

[Gunny]

Was Mussolini a populist?

I would say yes.

[Gunny]

well not to run is conversation into the ground over definitions, (to late?)
But ok so you're saying part of being a populist is just promoting easy answers.

so if the answers easy it's populist? there are a LOT of candidates that propose easy answers. so again i don't see this definition as being very clear either.
People are sick and can't pay health bills = " gov't must give universal health care" =populist?
Saddam has WMDs = we must go to WAR =populist?
We were attacked on 911 = we must torture people and spy on every citizen to make it stop =populist?
Wages are low = gov't must increase minimum wage =populist?
People die in mass shootings = Ban all guns =populist?
the economy's slow = cut corporate taxes and regs =populist?
Abortion is murder = re-outlaw abortion = populist?
Israel is our "ally" = support them no matter what they do =populist?
Vacines are good medicine = everyone should be forced to take them or else =populist?

I still say it's often only described as "simply" or "correct" answers if it's OUTSIDE of the regular/current party playbook prescriptions.

When Bush agreed to a "fence" on the boarder he wasn't called "populist" i don't think.

to clarify and define it again i guess i'm saying:
people call OTHERS populist when they don't like their politics ("simple answers 'tut tut'"), and/or are pandering to the crowds, they're outside the party boxes in their proposals and party roots, and they are popular.

Here's the problem, Rev ... you're like a dog with an irrelevant bone.

Populist is a label whether or not it fits the actual definition. Same as with liberal, conservative, and/or libertarian. In a society of tunnel vision where everything has to have a label and is immediately stuffed into a category, put in the appropriate folder and file in the appropriate drawer. Once labeled, other do not allow you to believe anything outside the parameters of your folder.

In other words, you're STILL making too much out of a label.

[Gunny]

Really? How are conservatives responsible for that idiot Sanders? No conservative would vote for that socialist bastard. And no conservative thinks that the worthless son of a bitchhh should hold any kind of public office, thats you and your kind all for that.

Do explain how conservatives are going to vote Sanders to be the nominee? -Tyr

He's saying that people supporting Trump and coloring outside the lines of conservatism and he is quite correct. If Trump and Sanders are the nominees, BOTH parties are coloring outside the lines of their respective parties.

[fj1200]

Trump has for years talked about trade deficits and "bad" deals like NAFTA. He ranted about them when he toyed with the idea of running for president in the past.

Which wouldn't necessarily make him any less of a populist. It seems like every deal is bad when it comes to trade for trump.


Was Mussolini a populist?

Interesting question. It's a hard thing to define because it doesn't really have a center IMO but I would agree with Gunny and say yes especially given the historical ties of fascism and populism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Fascism_and_populism


Really? How are conservatives responsible for that idiot Sanders? No conservative would vote for that socialist bastard. And no conservative thinks that the worthless son of a bitchhh should hold any kind of public office, thats you and your kind all for that.

Do explain how conservatives are going to vote Sanders to be the nominee? -Tyr

I'm not aware of any conservatives supporting Sanders. Populism is not limited to the right. Both sides have the capability of being wrong about trade.

[fj1200]

well not to run is conversation into the ground over definitions, (to late?)
But ok so you're saying part of being a populist is just promoting easy answers.

so if the answers easy it's populist? there are a LOT of candidates that propose easy answers. so again i don't see this definition as being very clear either.
People are sick and can't pay health bills = " gov't must give universal health care" =populist?
Saddam has WMDs = we must go to WAR =populist?
We were attacked on 911 = we must torture people and spy on every citizen to make it stop =populist?
Wages are low = gov't must increase minimum wage =populist?
People die in mass shootings = Ban all guns =populist?
the economy's slow = cut corporate taxes and regs =populist?
Abortion is murder = re-outlaw abortion = populist?
Israel is our "ally" = support them no matter what they do =populist?
Vacines are good medicine = everyone should be forced to take them or else =populist?

I still say it's often only described as "simply" or "correct" answers if it's OUTSIDE of the regular/current party playbook prescriptions.

When Bush agreed to a "fence" on the boarder he wasn't called "populist" i don't think.

to clarify and define it again i guess i'm saying:
people call OTHERS populist when they don't like their politics ("simple answers 'tut tut'"), and/or are pandering to the crowds, they're outside the party boxes in their proposals and party roots, and they are popular.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a fine line. One can say we need to control our borders and the best way to do that is build a fence and not be a populist but if someone else says that Mexicans are flooding over the border to murder and rape our women and children then I'm likely to say that's a populist position. Having said that I think you probably need to have more than one or two such positions to be a populist.

Much of your list doesn't really speak to the people's "hopes and fears" so wouldn't necessarily be populist. And some of that depends on the people themselves. There weren't rallies in the streets demanding that we take care of Saddam and his WMDs for example.

And cutting corporate taxes is just plain smart. :poke:

[revelarts]

I'll be the first to admit that there is a fine line. One can say we need to control our borders and the best way to do that is build a fence and not be a populist but if someone else says that Mexicans are flooding over the border to murder and rape our women and children then I'm likely to say that's a populist position. Having said that I think you probably need to have more than one or two such positions to be a populist.

Much of your list doesn't really speak to the people's "hopes and fears" so wouldn't necessarily be populist. And some of that depends on the people themselves. There weren't rallies in the streets demanding that we take care of Saddam and his WMDs for example.

And cutting corporate taxes is just plain smart. :poke:


I'd call someone who says
"...Mexicans are flooding over the border to murder and rape our women and children..."
a race baiter and an idiot.

so IMO again the term "populist" seems to be used to give some fully illegitimate-low-life political methods some semi-political cover.
Among it's others uses.

Pandering, idiotically stirring people up against "others", playing to people's basest fears or hopes, (all in sincerity or not), in some ways that's like part of every politicians job description. You seem to be saying that those that do with less sophistication and without a guiding philosophy or party line should be called populist.
I still say it's mainly just a negative dismissive label, almost as bad as "Teabagger", "Chicken Hawk", "Latte liberal" "conspiracy theorist", "commie" or "redneck". But it tries to play like it's an honest political term like liberal, conservative, libertarian, progressive, independent or moderate. (@gunny)


But BTW i suspect deregulation and cutting corporate taxes would qualify as playing to the hopes and fears to some people :whistling2:

[revelarts]

I agree with the idea that a populist candidate may stumble upon populism. Something is said, something happens, the 'people' declare a 'hero' and off we go. It's as much or perhaps more about the effect than the cause. It's self-feeding between the mob and 'leader.'

Part of my point is most don't call those they follow a "populist" leader.

W Bush is hailed by many still as a great leader and people still defend stuff he said and did that HE doesn't even defend anymore.
Reagan even more so.

but it's just "conservative" if folks follow them with deep hero like fervor.
Even though many of the things they did did not strictly fall into the conservative lanes either.

But hey I'm not asking people to stop using any terms.
I'm just pointing out that it's a loaded crummy political dig and not an honest political label anymore... if it ever was.

[fj1200]

I'd call someone who says
"...Mexicans are flooding over the border to murder and rape our women and children..."
a race baiter and an idiot.

so IMO again the term "populist" seems to be used to give some fully illegitimate-low-life political methods some semi-political cover.
Among it's others uses.

Pandering, idiotically stirring people up against "others", playing to people's basest fears or hopes, (all in sincerity or not), in some ways that's like part of every politicians job description. You seem to be saying that those that do with less sophistication and without a guiding philosophy or party line should be called populist.
I still say it's mainly just a negative dismissive label, almost as bad as "Teabagger", "Chicken Hawk", "Latte liberal" "conspiracy theorist", "commie" or "redneck". But it tries to play like it's an honest political term like liberal, conservative, libertarian, progressive, independent or moderate. (@gunny)

But BTW i suspect deregulation and cutting corporate taxes would qualify as playing to the hopes and fears to some people :whistling2:

I don't deny it's dismissive. I don't look at the term positively. To the bold, both trump and sanders have been called populist. I think sanders has a guiding political philosophy moreso than trump but both fall under that definition to some. It's a fluid thing, I admit it.

And don't mess wit my cutting corporate taxes. :martian:


Part of my point is most don't call those they follow a "populist" leader.

...

But hey I'm not asking people to stop using any terms.
I'm just pointing out that it's a loaded crummy political dig and not an honest political label anymore... if it ever was.

It sounds like you're in denial that populism is something. It clearly is something and sometimes the label just fits. :poke: