Populism; Good or Bad

[fj1200]

I say bad because it has no core ideology and is dangerous because of where it could lead. How I define it is something along the lines of looking at issues and solutions merely because they are popular, or will appeal to the populace, and not because they are correct.

What say you? Do you have a different definition?

[LongTermGuy]

....The Delusional World of Liberalism (https://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/2018/05/20/the-delusional-world-of-liberalism/)


https://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/2018/05/20/the-delusional-world-of-liberalism/

[SassyLady]

I see populism as a counter balance to the slowly erosion of power from the people to the elites who think the majority of Americans can't decide what's best for themselves. Populism needs to happen to reset the boundaries.

Unfortunately, those who are comfortable in the current state of affairs try to shame those who are starting to speak up and show their outrage.

[tailfins]

Anything, including populism, is better than Marxism/Collectivism. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. Huey Long was a collectivist populist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saSdgePwFZE


Why weep or slumber AmericaLand of brave and true
With castles and clothing and food for all
All belongs to you
Ev'ry man a King, ev'ry man a King
For you can be a millionaire
But there's something belonging to others
There's enough for all people to share
When it's sunny June and December too
Or in the Winter time or Spring
There'll be peace without end
Ev'ry neighbor a friend

With ev'ry man a King

[fj1200]

....The Delusional World of Liberalism (https://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/2018/05/20/the-delusional-world-of-liberalism/)

https://liberalsbackwardsthink.com/2018/05/20/the-delusional-world-of-liberalism/

I didn't see anything about populism in your link.


I see populism as a counter balance to the slowly eroding of power from the people to the elites who think the majority of Americans can't decide what's best for themselves. Populism needs to happen to reset the boundaries.

Unfortunately, those who are comfortable in the current state of affairs try to shame those who are starting to speak up and show their outrage.

But what is populism in your book? If my definition is correct and outrage is misplaced then isn't the populist movement counterproductive? I would think liberty is a counter balance to collected power.


Anything, including populism, is better than Marxism/Collectivism. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. Huey Long was a collectivist populist.

I think I disagree that populism is better but I agree with the bold. Populism usually goes along with something else, some other underlying ideology, and what it adds isn't positive.

[Kathianne]

I say bad because it has no core ideology and is dangerous because of where it could lead. How I define it is something along the lines of looking at issues and solutions merely because they are popular, or will appeal to the populace, and not because they are correct.

What say you? Do you have a different definition?

To my way of thinking it can be one issue such as hard money or it can be slavish devotion to a person or persona.

[SassyLady]

But what is populism in your book? If my definition is correct and outrage is misplaced then isn't the populist movement counterproductive? I would think liberty is a counter balance to collected power.

How do you achieve liberty when elites are running everything to benefit themselves without some form of revolt (i.e., sticking it to hedge funds)?

[fj1200]

How do you achieve liberty when elites are running everything to benefit themselves without some form of revolt (i.e., sticking it to hedge funds)?

First step is to identify that actual problem.

[Gunny]

populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established, elite groups. That's a yahoo search definition

Works for me. One would assume that concern would be based on what is used/how the people are appealed to. One could easily place the left's crap as a populist view; albeit, POV based on fallacies.

So I would say that populism does not equal right or left or Trump, but is as good or bad as its intent.

[fj1200]

populism: a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established, elite groups. That's a yahoo search definition

Works for me. One would assume that concern would be based on what is used/how the people are appealed to. One could easily place the left's crap as a populist view; albeit, POV based on fallacies.

So I would say that populism does not equal right or left or Trump, but is as good or bad as its intent.

I definitely agree that it doesn't equal left or right; either side can be populist. I just don't see any good coming from it. If it's correct it's a non-issue and isn't an actual solution. If it's wrong it points the finger at the wrong thing and becomes a problem.

[Gunny]

I definitely agree that it doesn't equal left or right; either side can be populist. I just don't see any good coming from it. If it's correct it's a non-issue and isn't an actual solution. If it's wrong it points the finger at the wrong thing and becomes a problem.. How does it always point to the wrong problem? It can, but that is not a given.

Strange discussion to have in a Nation where most causes are popular rather than populist and misinformation is purposefully used on a People who generally knee-jerk react to everything.

[fj1200]

. How does it always point to the wrong problem? It can, but that is not a given.

Strange discussion to have in a Nation where most causes are popular rather than populist and misinformation is purposefully used on a People who generally knee-jerk react to everything.

It doesn't always point to the wrong problem, I didn't mean to imply that it did. I think if it does point to the wrong problem then what good is it?

But you're right about popular vs. populist. Small-government conservatism can be popular but wouldn't be populist; same thing with those wanting big-government solutions. I think for most of my adult years the US has been right vs. left, smaller government vs. bigger government, etc. But I think so many of the movements recently are tending to populist thinking and I'm not sure any of them are positive.

[Gunny]

It doesn't always point to the wrong problem, I didn't mean to imply that it did. I think if it does point to the wrong problem then what good is it?

But you're right about popular vs. populist. Small-government conservatism can be popular but wouldn't be populist; same thing with those wanting big-government solutions. I think for most of my adult years the US has been right vs. left, smaller government vs. bigger government, etc. But I think so many of the movements recently are tending to populist thinking and I'm not sure any of them are positive.Use it in context. "Populism" itself is pretty meaningless beyond its definition. The media dredged it up to (mis)label Trump. In that context, it was used in derogatory fashion to point out he is not part of the establishment/a DC insider.

I haven't heard it in used in years until then. The left/MSM apparently do not have access to a dictionary when they start labeling.

[Kathianne]

Use it in context. "Populism" itself is pretty meaningless beyond its definition. The media dredged it up to (mis)label Trump. In that context, it was used in derogatory fashion to point out he is not part of the establishment/a DC insider.

I haven't heard it in used in years until then. The left/MSM apparently do not have access to a dictionary when they start labeling.

I don't think the term applies to Trump, though he acknowledged the phenomenon with the shoot someone on 5th Ave., rather to those rather see no wrongs in what he's done in the parallel vein of Obama regarding divisions created. It didn't have to be that way, but it was.

[fj1200]

Use it in context. "Populism" itself is pretty meaningless beyond its definition. The media dredged it up to (mis)label Trump. In that context, it was used in derogatory fashion to point out he is not part of the establishment/a DC insider.

I haven't heard it in used in years until then. The left/MSM apparently do not have access to a dictionary when they start labeling.

I very much use it in context. What the media chooses to do is their choice but to me he smacks of populism. Whatever core principles he actually has is tough to tell but his go-to is to rile up his base with populist rhetoric.

[Kathianne]

I very much use it in context. What the media chooses to do is their choice but to me he smacks of populism. Whatever core principles he actually has is tough to tell but his go-to is to rile up his base with populist rhetoric.
I have to agree. It's by no means the only problem effecting the political landscape more than a decade, but it's a significant one.

On the right it's focused on Trump, imo. 1/6 was the culminating event, but not a one off as the worst of the right wants it to be presented. That particular event was months in the making, one could argue years in sowing the seeds of distrust in all information from media/government/business. Since there was justification in much of the distrust it was easy to get some to move from distrust to action.

On the left just about any woke issue has been enough to enable a bunch of white, highly educated thugs to riot, loot, and intimidate in the name of social justice. The common factor between the left and right has become destruction of our system of government, trust in ability to effect change without violence.

Principles not underlying either, just chaos.

[fj1200]

^Bam!

And lest anyone think I'm only getting on trump here I did mention BLM, etc. in another thread but it's also minimum wage, Occupy Wallstreet, the 1% movement a few years ago, wealth inequality, etc. Unfortunately an endless list.

[Gunny]

I very much use it in context. What the media chooses to do is their choice but to me he smacks of populism. Whatever core principles he actually has is tough to tell but his go-to is to rile up his base with populist rhetoric.In reference to Trump? Go back to the definition. Using that as a barometer, "populism" is how politicians, or anyone else for that matter, achieve a majority consensus with a common goal. Anything that appeals to the masses can be labeled "populist".

I don't see populism as anything good or bad; rather, in and of itself, benign. Now add the correct noun. Conservative, Constitutional, Libertarian, Criminal Party ... therein lies your good or bad. Using Trump as an example, his appeal is "populist", but he has to have a stance on an issue that his followers are generally in agreement on for it to be a populist stance. That's a statement about where the issue stands, not the issue itself.

Back to the negativity. Populist political beliefs in this country/society are fueled by fear and negativity. In that context, I agree with you it's not a good thing. I just don't see the populism as being to blame. The message and the persons putting it out are the bad thing.

[fj1200]

In reference to Trump? Go back to the definition. Using that as a barometer, "populism" is how politicians, or anyone else for that matter, achieve a majority consensus with a common goal. Anything that appeals to the masses can be labeled "populist".

I don't see populism as anything good or bad; rather, in and of itself, benign. Now add the correct noun. Conservative, Constitutional, Libertarian, Criminal Party ... therein lies your good or bad. Using Trump as an example, his appeal is "populist", but he has to have a stance on an issue that his followers are generally in agreement on for it to be a populist stance. That's a statement about where the issue stands, not the issue itself.

Back to the negativity. Populist political beliefs in this country/society are fueled by fear and negativity. In that context, I agree with you it's not a good thing. I just don't see the populism as being to blame. The message and the persons putting it out are the bad thing.

I don't disagree with the definition you posted earlier; I did take it a bit further in how I look at it. I think it can be attached to almost anything else and I just don't think the attachment is positive.

I guess my opinion of why it's bad is when the movement itself seems to be nothing other than populist. Especially when it's against another group of people who can be lumped together and demonized; see my earlier list.

[Kathianne]

I don't disagree with the definition you posted earlier; I did take it a bit further in how I look at it. I think it can be attached to almost anything else and I just don't think the attachment is positive.

I guess my opinion of why it's bad is when the movement itself seems to be nothing other than populist. Especially when it's against another group of people who can be lumped together and demonized; see my earlier list.

I'd take it even further. When people caught up in the phenomenon, it becomes near cult-like. Normally rational people will ignore things they know are wrong, even dangerous, all in the name of their cause or leader.

[icansayit]

What I'm reading here is...If anyone...LIKE ME...happens to mention being part of the
POPULISM followers....We instantly Earn the Wrath of others who take pleasure in Judging us...for what we believe, think, or say.
LIBERAL offensiveness comes in many forms...and they have taken nearly ALL OF THE WORDS they want to DESTROY, CANCEL, and RUIN others...even those they do not know!

On that note. Suppose I ADMIT to being a POPULIST right here on D.P. Now tell me how wrong I am for admitting it, and I'll call you a BIGOT, RACIST, and IDIOT.

[SassyLady]

What I'm reading here is...If anyone...LIKE ME...happens to mention being part of the
POPULISM followers....We instantly Earn the Wrath of others who take pleasure in Judging us...for what we believe, think, or say.
LIBERAL offensiveness comes in many forms...and they have taken nearly ALL OF THE WORDS they want to DESTROY, CANCEL, and RUIN others...even those they do not know!

On that note. Suppose I ADMIT to being a POPULIST right here on D.P. Now tell me how wrong I am for admitting it, and I'll call you a BIGOT, RACIST, and IDIOT.

I guess I'm a populist as well. I like the idea of American First. I like the idea of Make America Great Again. If someone else puts those agendas out there I will probably support them as well. I did not, and do not support Trump like a cult member but I supported his policies. If it makes me a populist because I like that rallying cry of America First ... so be it.

[Kathianne]

I guess I'm a populist as well. I like the idea of American First. I like the idea of Make America Great Again. If someone else puts those agendas out there I will probably support them as well. I did not, and do not support Trump like a cult member but I supported his policies. If it makes me a populist because I like that rallying cry of America First ... so be it.

That's not what anyone is saying. I supported his policies, they were good for America.. What I don't support is ignoring the rules, set by constitution or state laws.. if states had executives acting wrong, changing rules, that was time to deal with. Not on Twitter. Not encouraging undermining the system we have.

[SassyLady]

That's not what anyone is saying. I supported his policies, they were good for America.. What I don't support is ignoring the rules, set by constitution or state laws.. if states had executives acting wrong, changing rules, that was time to deal with. Not on Twitter. Not encouraging undermining the system we have.

The system we have is being twisted by Democrats right now and something needs to be be done or America will never be united again. Labeling people as populist because they are rallying around an idea is one way of shutting down opposition.

I agree populism is used by those in power (on all sides or those who want to be in power) to counter apathy, but not all populism is destructive.

[fj1200]

I guess I'm a populist as well. I like the idea of American First. I like the idea of Make America Great Again. If someone else puts those agendas out there I will probably support them as well. I did not, and do not support Trump like a cult member but I supported his policies. If it makes me a populist because I like that rallying cry of America First ... so be it.

Those are words, not policy. If policy is increasing government, limiting liberty, protectionist trade policies; then bad policy. If policy is a better corporate tax policy that makes the US more competitive globally; then good policy. He's a populist because people follow his words not his policies which were at best mixed in productiveness.


The system we have is being twisted by Democrats right now and something needs to be be done or America will never be united again. Labeling people as populist because they are rallying around an idea is one way of shutting down opposition.

I agree populism is used by those in power (on all sides or those who want to be in power) to counter apathy, but not all populism is destructive.

Republicans control most State governments. On the issue of shutting down opposition; what do you think trump did? The same thing his followers do? They shut down opposition in their own party if anyone fails to toe the trump line.

I don't think I've seen positive populism though perhaps I'm biased. I'm happy to be wrong.

[Gunny]

I don't disagree with the definition you posted earlier; I did take it a bit further in how I look at it. I think it can be attached to almost anything else and I just don't think the attachment is positive.

I guess my opinion of why it's bad is when the movement itself seems to be nothing other than populist. Especially when it's against another group of people who can be lumped together and demonized; see my earlier list.I don't see a list. I absolutely agree there is nothing positive about pulling issues out of one's backside and demonizing others/groups for it.

It does seem to be how we roll though on just about everything. Nothing just "is" and to be dealt with. There has to be a bad guy, real or contrived. The MO of the Nazi Party in Germany was to project their evils onto their victims while claiming themselves to be the victims. It worked for most of the 30s and ultimately led to a World war. Sure, we won, but at what cost when it could have been prevented by people that stood around and cowed to it instead. And yes, I'll say it ... we're following the playbook verbatim.

I will add that although the left operates out of that manual at every turn, it is not the only. I've heard crazy crap from all sides. Point is, it is getting to where one must choose a side, have it chosen for you by the opposition, or sit in the middle like sheep waiting on whoever is going to tell you what to do.

[Kathianne]

I don't see a list. I absolutely agree there is nothing positive about pulling issues out of one's backside and demonizing others/groups for it.

It does seem to be how we roll though on just about everything. Nothing just "is" and to be dealt with. There has to be a bad guy, real or contrived. The MO of the Nazi Party in Germany was to project their evils onto their victims while claiming themselves to be the victims. It worked for most of the 30s and ultimately led to a World war. Sure, we won, but at what cost when it could have been prevented by people that stood around and cowed to it instead. And yes, I'll say it ... we're following the playbook verbatim.

I will add that although the left operates out of that manual at every turn, it is not the only. I've heard crazy crap from all sides. Point is, it is getting to where one must choose a side, have it chosen for you by the opposition, or sit in the middle like sheep waiting on whoever is going to tell you what to do.

You pretty much summed up my arguments of what is happening. I've noticed increasingly, (some here, but mostly other "right" folks I read elsewhere, even elected officials), actually arguing in favor of leftist word and actions. Especially the use of Alinsky and some of Obama's more violent quotes, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." "Punch back twice as hard."

I realize that many here feel like I'm harsh on the right; I probably am, as I do expect better from those I've considered kindred for a good majority of my adult life. It's like family or best friends I've put them in a special category because of qualities I credited with over time. Their principles were close to mine. Discussion and disagreement were expected and shared.

Since so many, especially politicians, have decided that the 'the other side is evil, not just wrong, well anyone who doesn't agree in toto with what is going on, must be 'liberal ' or evil, and "their time is also coming. " Yet, it's only the left and media being seen as manipulative and uncompromising.

I'm more than aware that the left has used these tactics longer and to more effect. The right though is catching up quickly and appears blind as schoolyard children that while there may be times to beat up the bully, it usually is a good idea to make up afterwards.

[fj1200]

Since I already started a thread on this awhile ago.


I say bad because it has no core ideology and is dangerous because of where it could lead. How I define it is something along the lines of looking at issues and solutions merely because they are popular, or will appeal to the populace, and not because they are correct.

What say you? Do you have a different definition?


The topic "populism" intrigues me. Populism itself, IMO, is better than the alternative. In simple terms, a government controlled by the people is preferential to a government controlled by a group of political insiders and/or wealthy elite.

I would say whether or not a populist idea is good or bad depends on what the populist's concerns are (real or imagined).

I'm not seeing a one size fits all definition.

I AM seeing this:https://wachouston.org/student-resources/discussions/memberships-landing-page-5/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxeSV4tyC9gIVwxbUAR36LQoVEAAYASA AEgKyEfD_BwE

They say it can be right or left wing, then call it anti-American among other labels the left lays on the right.

Then there's this one:


a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

I'm basically getting that anytime the people present the "other side" as the elite they become a dirty word.

I think my above definition is still correct. Your link and the rise of populism in Europe... The definition above... "The people over the elites." as you say they are good or bad depending on the populist's concerns. Are they Constitutional populists or are they nationalist populists? Do they really want to give power to ordinary people to have control over their own lives or do they want to give power to a different group? Today's populists are tomorrow's elites.

I've said before, I have my own definition and other's may have different views but if it's just different ways to say "ordinary people over the elites," you're not really saying anything. A government controlled by the people is a fine thing until those people start thinking that your life, liberty, and property would be better served by what they think is important.

[revelarts]

Populism; Good or Bad - YES
Democracy; Good or Bad - YES
Conservatism; Good or Bad - YES
Liberalism; Good or Bad - YES
Libertarianism; Good or Bad - YES
Monarchism; Good or Bad - YES
Republic-ism; Good or Bad - YES

Fascism; Good or Bad - BAD
Communism; Good or Bad - BAD
Socialism; Good or Bad - BAD... but sometimes good

[icansayit]

The one, and only thing that matters...or should matter to all Americans is..."FREEDOM".
Using names, definitions, opinions, descriptions, rhetoric, or big words to impress others ALL MEAN NOTHING....
IF WE DO NOT HAVE OUR FREEDOM!

https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/e5b511bbaa9ed89b067811ab0ace37ed09edd08a68ce6d6216 600b5f69c91a5a_1.jpg

[fj1200]

Populism; Good or Bad - YES

No. Always bad. Even if they happen to agree with me. Their agreeance is fleeting.

Those others on your list at least have an actual definition upon which to be judged.

[revelarts]

No. Always bad. Even if they happen to agree with me. Their agreeance is fleeting.

Those others on your list at least have an actual definition upon which to be judged.
So you're saying the others are consistent and clear in definition and what they stand for?

Like Trump being "conservative" like Romney, and Cheney, and McCain, and etc. they all are working off a CLEAR and consitant POV?
really?

if we're just picking candidates based on pragmatism and personality anyway the label populist is no worse than conservative.

[Gunny]

No. Always bad. Even if they happen to agree with me. Their agreeance is fleeting.

Those others on your list at least have an actual definition upon which to be judged.


But those definitions don't really include anything about a core belief which is my problem with it. Stay tuned.........

Let's try and keep this in one place. Not much worse than holding the same conversation in more than place :)

What "core belief"?

By definition, "populism" itself is neutral. It can be good or bad, right or wrong, left or right. It requires a specific topic and right or wrong interpretation to be "good or bad". Logically and by definition, it cannot always be bad anymore than good.

What it takes to make it good or bad is the same thing everything takes to be good or bad: People. It's as good or bad as the people, and still depends on perspective.

From our POV, the "populist movement" know as the American Revolution was a good thing. To King George III, it was a pain in the ass while he was dealing with bigger problems.

The break-up of the Soviet Union was a populist movement. Bad thing? If the people of China rose up against Ping Pong and and his commie government that would be a populist movement. Good or bad?

I'm getting the idea that this is one of many words misused for whatever reason by the usual suspects and their motivations (which I would call "bad"), to the point that it is mainstream used and accepted incorrectly. I have not and do not use the word, nor have I been around people who do so I have no preconceived/learned, jaded definition but those provided.

Not saying I can't see where populism can be bad. Simply saying it needs context. Racism is a populist belief I see as bad, but it has context -- stated beliefs.

[SassyLady]

Well said Gunny.
:clap:

[NightTrain]

Well said Gunny.
:clap:

I'm late to the thread, but what Gunny just posted is everything I have to say about the subject.

[icansayit]

Who died here on DP and left FJ as the King, and Final answer to anything he tells us he knows more about than any of us???

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcKfXaz_uH-JUbwmy-5xNdDNN81qHitxcd3A&usqp=CAU

[fj1200]

So you're saying the others are consistent and clear in definition and what they stand for?

Like Trump being "conservative" like Romney, and Cheney, and McCain, and etc. they all are working off a CLEAR and consitant POV?
really?

if we're just picking candidates based on pragmatism and personality anyway the label populist is no worse than conservative.

Yes. Really. At least in the short term those terms generally mean specific things. In the long run the classical liberals of yesteryear are nothing like the perjorative liberals of today.

Are you sure "no worse"? I'm sure we can all name populists we may agree with on some issues and we can name some populists who will take away everything from you once they get some power. Does that make them "no worse"? You complain above about "conservatives" but at least they have a core belief that I can count on. In the short term anyway.

Case in point:

trump. Populist

warren. Populist

sanders. Populist

I don't want those last two populists anywhere near the levers of power.

[fj1200]

Let's try and keep this in one place. Not much worse than holding the same conversation in more than place :)

What "core belief"?

By definition, "populism" itself is neutral. It can be good or bad, right or wrong, left or right. It requires a specific topic and right or wrong interpretation to be "good or bad". Logically and by definition, it cannot always be bad anymore than good.

What it takes to make it good or bad is the same thing everything takes to be good or bad: People. It's as good or bad as the people, and still depends on perspective.

From our POV, the "populist movement" know as the American Revolution was a good thing. To King George III, it was a pain in the ass while he was dealing with bigger problems.

The break-up of the Soviet Union was a populist movement. Bad thing? If the people of China rose up against Ping Pong and and his commie government that would be a populist movement. Good or bad?

I'm getting the idea that this is one of many words misused for whatever reason by the usual suspects and their motivations (which I would call "bad"), to the point that it is mainstream used and accepted incorrectly. I have not and do not use the word, nor have I been around people who do so I have no preconceived/learned, jaded definition but those provided.

Not saying I can't see where populism can be bad. Simply saying it needs context. Racism is a populist belief I see as bad, but it has context -- stated beliefs.

I was going to start a thread and then I realized I already had one. Save the internet, recycle old threads. :poke:

It's a fair point that populism is neutral. But it's neutral in that it can be almost anything and almost anything on either end of the spectrum. And I think that is my problem with it. The American Revolution. The Soviet Union. China. I don't really put those in the populist category. Overthrowing dictatorial rule for self-governing and self-determination and rights of individuals are not really populist because we know what they are and what they want. Popular? Yes. Populist? Not IMO.

I won't argue the point that this word is misused. I agree that many words are misused these days; Purposefuly or out of ignorance can be argued but definitely misused. Racism and fascism are also misused. However, I haven't thought of racism as a populist belief. I have put Black Lives Matter in the populist camp before. IMO they take things that are true, but not prevalent, and assign them to the whole. "a racist cop shot me so all cops are racists." Clearly not true but it advances a populist cause.

But I'm still judging populist by the definition I started with.


... looking at issues and solutions merely because they are popular, or will appeal to the populace, and not because they are correct.

I judge it as negative based on it but it may not be based on someone else's definition.

[fj1200]

FJ ... the King


Thank you. But I'm not sure why ideas and words on a screen frighten you so.

[icansayit]

Thank you. But I'm not sure why ideas and words on a screen frighten you so.

What the words frighten you so even mean. How could you with your nostrils pointing up unlike every other person. I would like to know how much you invested in WIDENING your doors to allow you to move from room to room without bumping your overly large head.

[Kathianne]

While there are issues, even moments in time where "populism' can be useful to gain support, as a political mindset I'm not in favor of. Imo it tends to marry with the worst elements that rise in nationalism. Maybe it's on the downswing for now? Matt Welch is NOT my go to source, but I think even a fool gets somethings right occasionally:

https://reason.com/2022/03/07/putins-aggression-is-isolating-the-new-nationalists/

[revelarts]

Author Thomas Frank explains some history and how the term populism was politically recontextualised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VgeB-GG76U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxX-Cyb0RPg

[fj1200]

Author Thomas Frank explains some history and how the term populism was politically recontextualised.

Take some things that are true, extend that to things that are not true and may appeal to the populace but are not true. Just like a populist to ultimately demand that government do something for the individual at the expense of others. AOC wrapped that up in a bow.

[Gunny]

fj1200

I think I have reconciled your use of the word "populist" with what I have always referred to as "flavor of the day rock stars". A cult of personality where any resemblance to a system of political beliefs is purely coincidental.

Yeah, sometimes it takes awhile :laugh:

I can't differentiate much between "populist" and "popular" without specific context/example.

[fj1200]

@fj1200 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=728)

I think I have reconciled your use of the word "populist" with what I have always referred to as "flavor of the day rock stars". A cult of personality where any resemblance to a system of political beliefs is purely coincidental.

Yeah, sometimes it takes awhile :laugh:

I can't differentiate much between "populist" and "popular" without specific context/example.

Context or examples? How about this:

Reagan: Popular (among some) and conservative. For small government, pro-Constitution, lower taxes, etc.

trump: Popular (among some) and populist. For protectionism, build the wall, China China China, drain the swamp, etc. Not to say that he didn't have some small government positions, lower regulations, lower taxes, etc. Some things good and some things bad.

[fj1200]

Some good reads.


About The Global Populisms ProjectGlobal populism is on the rise. Initially associated with Latin America in the 1990s and new post-communist democracies in the 2000s, populist parties and politicians have now gained support—and power—in established democracies as well. The United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Hungary have all seen populist surges in the last few years — with the election of Donald Trump in the United States as perhaps the most striking of these gains.
This surge demands explanation, and requires careful thinking. Populist parties are a threat to liberal democracy. Their defining characteristic is a claim to represent an “organic” people or nation, rather than specific interests or groups. Such representation has two worrying implications: first, the nation has to be defined, usually in terms that exclude vulnerable groups from the definition of the “people.” This is majority rule without minority rights. Second, those who disagree with populist representation of “the people” are obviously not the “real” nation. The opposition (whether elite or popular) is considered treasonous and treacherous.
Among most dangerous of populism’s consequences is the erosion of formal democratic rules and liberal institutions. These destructive effects of populist rule include the takeover and taming of courts and oversight institutions, and new laws that limit the freedom of the media and civil society. These legal and formal maneuvers erode public criticism, transparency, and accountability.

Just as importantly, however, such governments have also made a point of undermining informal democratic norms, such as conflict of interest laws, financial transparency, or respect for opposition. Here the damage may go deeper and be far less reversible: such norms and informal rules are the product of decades of elite and popular interactions. Once such trust and consensus disappears, it is not be easy to bring it back.
https://fsi.stanford.edu/global-populisms/global-populism-about


What has caused the rise in populism?What has caused this surge of support for populism? There are at least three competing narratives.
1.) One was not so long ago provided by Moises Naim, editor of the magazine Foreign Policy. Populism has to be taken seriously he agrees. But it has no intellectual coherence. It is merely a rhetorical ‘tactic’ that demagogues around the world have always used, and will continue to use, to gain power and then hold on to it. As Naim puts it:

“The fact is that populism is not an ideology. Instead, it’s a strategy to obtain and retain power. It has been around for centuries, recently appearing to resurface in full force, propelled by the digital revolution, precarious economies, and the threatening insecurity of what lies ahead.” (7)
This however does not make populism any the less dangerous. Indeed, populism is invariably divisive, thrives on conspiracy, finds enemies even where they do not exist, criminalises all opposition to them, plays up external threats, and more of than not insists that its critics at home are merely working for foreign governments. Yet one would be wasting one’s time — he implies — seeking some deeper cause for this particular phenomenon.
2.) A second — more influential — view is that populism in its modern iteration is a search for meaning in what Tony Giddens earlier termed a ‘runaway world’ of globalisation — a world which according to Giddens at least is “shaking up our existing ways of life, no matter where we happen to be” Moreover, this world, says Giddens, is emerging in “an anarchic, haphazard, fashion….fraught with anxieties, as well as scarred by deep divisions and a feeling that we are all “in the grip of forces over which we have no control”. (8) Indeed, not only do we have no control. Because of the speed and depth of the changes across traditional frontiers, many citizens feel as if the world is not just passing them by but undermining their settled notion of identity born in more stable , more settled times. This loss has been felt by everybody. But it has been experienced most by an older cohort of white people who simply want to turn the clock back to a time when the people in their towns looked like them, sounded like them and even had the same traditional loyalties as most of them: an age in other words when there were fewer immigrants and even fewer Muslims living amongst them.
Globalisation and socio-economic factors in this account obviously play a role, as Giddens makes clear. But according to this narrative at the heart of the modern populist problem is not so much economics as identity and meaning driven by a set of inchoate, but nonetheless key questions about who I am, what I am, and do I still live in my own country surrounded by people who share the same values and allegiances?
3.) There is however a third way of understanding populism. And this argues that modern populism is less the result of an identity crisis as such and much more the result of what the Indian economist (now adviser to Indian Prime Minister Modi) Arvind Subramanian has termed “hyperglobalisation”. (9) This latest form of globalisation he notes began slowly in the 1970s, accelerated rapidly in the 1980s, took off in earnest in the 1990s, and continued to accelerate thereafter — until, that is, the crash of 2008. For years the results of this thirty year headlong drive towards the future only seemed to be positive and beneficial. Indeed, according to the many defenders of globalisation, the new economic order generated enormous wealth, drew in once previously closed economies, drove up the world’s GDP, encouraged real development in countries that had for years been poor, and most important of all in terms of human welfare, helped reduce poverty too. Not surprisingly India, China and the developing countries loved this new world order. They were its beneficiaries.
But for the West more generally it has through time created all sorts of downside problems. Wealth became ever more concentrated in the hands of the few, as shown by Thomas Piketty (10). Middle class incomes stagnated. Meanwhile, many of the working class in western countries found itself being driven out of work either by jobs going elsewhere or by a rush of cheap imported goods largely coming from China. And to add to their economic woes immigration undercut the price of their labour. Thus what may have been great for the corporations and the consumer — not to mention the Chinese — turned into an economic tsunami for the traditional bastions of labour.
https://lseideas.medium.com/understanding-the-global-rise-of-populism-27305a1c5355

[fj1200]

Populist movement about to screw over another country.

Chile’s populist moment? (https://theglobalamericans.org/2020/10/chiles-populist-moment/)

With few exceptions, Chileans have not had much tolerance for populism. Perhaps they are too conservative and reserved, perhaps also traumatized, for the histrionics of certain types of 21st century populism. “It’s not 30 pesos but 30 years” cried the millions who took to the streets last year, referring to 30 years of post-authoritarian rule. In scenes usually reserved for pro-democracy demonstrations, protesters were criticizing the democracy that Chile built. Or at least calling out the elites who built it. One could be forgiven for asking whether populism is back.
Anger and frustration at everyday living conditions—from the price of drugs and education to unsatisfactory, and privatized, pensions—pushed a few to violence, but many more peacefully demanded change. A plebiscite on October 25 provided Chileans with the chance to channel their anger towards a political process in the form of a new constitution. Seven and a half million voters, 78 percent of the voting public, opted to go ahead. For the first time in the country’s history, a constitution, the country’s eleventh, will be written (maybe) for the people and by the people—and half those people will be women, a world first.

More current:


https://youtu.be/fl1Haw7w_j0

[BoogyMan]

Not altogether sure that the term "Populism" defines exactly what we are seeing out there today. There IS an elite that does seem to despise the average citizen. The elite as called out by the original defining characteristics of populism actually does exist.

The reaction to traditional populism (both in the media and in society as a whole) seems to be what we are seeing out there today and it is cancerous to civil society.

14084

[icansayit]

https://icansayit.com/icsi/biden banana r.jpg

[fj1200]

Not altogether sure that the term "Populism" defines exactly what we are seeing out there today. There IS an elite that does seem to despise the average citizen. The elite as called out by the original defining characteristics of populism actually does exist.

The reaction to traditional populism (both in the media and in society as a whole) seems to be what we are seeing out there today and it is cancerous to civil society.

14084

That's a fair point, the whole definition can be argued and if it applies can be argued but I don't think what you pulled out is too far off. I don't dispute that there is an elite and I don't dispute that they seem to look down on the average citizen but that is always going to be true. However each side is going to choose an "elite" to represent them and despise an "elite" on the other side.

I'm not to sure of the functional difference of traditional populism and the populism of today. Populists may have different starting points but they seem to arc towards the same end; ends with an increase in government intrusion.

I'm not totally sure what you see as the reaction to populism today but I think that there are populist movements on both sides. BLM, student loans, UBI, etc. on the left and illegal immigration, trade, etc. on the right. Telling to me was the reaction on the left and right to the whole Gamestop trading debacle. It was classic anti-elite and both sides were pointing fingers at the "elites."

[revelarts]

FJ
Was the American Revolution a "populist" revolution?
if not, why not?
(by your broad definition seems it would be)

What ever it was to you,
was it good or bad?

[fj1200]

FJ
Was the American Revolution a "populist" revolution?
if not, why not?
(by your broad definition seems it would be)

What ever it was to you,
was it good or bad?

I'm not sure my definition is overly broad; "... along the lines of looking at issues and solutions merely because they are popular, or will appeal to the populace, and not because they are correct" but I grant you the point that definitions are fluid. Populism also seems to not just be a rebellion against the elite but also stems from a demand for government to do something for them; higher wages, higher payments, protectionism, etc. to save them from the elites.

Was the American Revolution populist in nature? No. There were specific solutions that came out of specific issues and from my expanded comments there was no demand that government do something. The embodiement of the revolution, the DoI and the C, are decidedly not populist in nature.

Was the AR good? Of course.

[Gunny]

Some good reads.


https://fsi.stanford.edu/global-populisms/global-populism-about


https://lseideas.medium.com/understanding-the-global-rise-of-populism-27305a1c5355SHould have known. Now there're globalist populists.

I'm far more concerned with the Marxists controlling DC right now. Seems to me if the cesspool in DC works for the best interest of the people, the globalism takes care of itself.

[revelarts]

I'm not sure my definition is overly broad; "... along the lines of looking at issues and solutions merely because they are popular, or will appeal to the populace, and not because they are correct" but I grant you the point that definitions are fluid. Populism also seems to not just be a rebellion against the elite but also stems from a demand for government to do something for them; higher wages, higher payments, protectionism, etc. to save them from the elites.

Was the American Revolution populist in nature? No. There were specific solutions that came out of specific issues and from my expanded comments there was no demand that government do something. The embodiement of the revolution, the DoI and the C, are decidedly not populist in nature.

Was the AR good? Of course.


mighty fine disection done there FJ.

but you know very well that the constitution was only written & hotly debated AFTER the the revolution.
And the DO independence basically made a list of grievances WHY they... the populus... felt compelled to rebelled.
high on the list was
taxation
Immgration laws
police harassment
"cutting off our Trade"
"depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury"
"relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature"
More than one place you've mentioned those, or issues like them, as "populace" issues.
And I'm not sure who would qualify as MORE elite than the King of England his court etc..


FJ, it seems to me based on what you've said over these 2 threads is that your main problem with populism is that it messes up the economic systems.
That's it's main sin. chaos in the marketplace. disruption of business.
Disturbance of an economic system that's made at least SOME people a lot of money. While others (who may be poor and completely disenfranchised in every way)
are, if not happy, at least at peace. under a system "that works" ... economically.
Be it a dictatorship (like Chile's), an oligarchy (like the globalist), or faux constitutional republic. as you've defined it here in the U.S..
since you think we SHOULD NOT hinder multinational corps from making rules for any city in the U.S. where they do biz.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE ECONOMY. for the sake of "FREE TRADE", seems like your real bottom line.

Not personal freedoms, or state, local or national sovereignty.
The stuff mentioned as the basis for the DOI and USConstitution.

populism is a threat to the flow of money.
reminds me of something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9XeyBd_IuA

[fj1200]

mighty fine disection done there FJ.

but you know very well that the constitution was only written & hotly debated AFTER the the revolution.
And the DO independence basically made a list of grievances WHY they... the populus... felt compelled to rebelled.
high on the list was
taxation
Immgration laws
police harassment
"cutting off our Trade"
"depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury"
"relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature"
More than one place you've mentioned those, or issues like them, as "populace" issues.
And I'm not sure who would qualify as MORE elite than the King of England his court etc..

And it took them two times to get it right and even then needed 10 amendments almost immediately. Specific issues and specific solutions. Nowhere in there did anyone ask for minimum wage laws, student loans to be paid off, universal healthcare, or whatever the 18th century issues of the day were. They essentially wanted their natural rights to be respected. No matter when they were written do you think that the spirit of the revolution was not present in the founding documents?

Not every movement is bad.


FJ, it seems to me based on what you've said over these 2 threads is that your main problem with populism is that it messes up the economic systems.
That's it's main sin. chaos in the marketplace. disruption of business.
Disturbance of an economic system that's made at least SOME people a lot of money. While others (who may be poor and completely disenfranchised in every way)
are, if not happy, at least at peace. under a system "that works" ... economically.
Be it a dictatorship (like Chile's), an oligarchy (like the globalist), or faux constitutional republic. as you've defined it here in the U.S..
since you think we SHOULD NOT hinder multinational corps from making rules for any city in the U.S. where they do biz.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE ECONOMY. for the sake of "FREE TRADE", seems like your real bottom line.

Not personal freedoms, or state, local or national sovereignty.
The stuff mentioned as the basis for the DOI and USConstitution.

populism is a threat to the flow of money.
reminds me of something.

I'm not sure why you have such a need to post videos of movies. :unsure:

My problem with populism is that it's wrong. It just so happens to mess with the free market many times. I'm not even sure if I should bother replying to the rest of your post because it seems you've decided that it's just easier to pretend to know what i think or flat out make up what I think. Maybe I'll reply later and try to make sense of the last part of your post. But a preview; my bottom line is liberty, aka personal freedoms.

[icansayit]

Speaking of Populists....

https://icansayit.com/icsi/nationalists.jpg

[fj1200]

Let me see if I can clear up a bunch of misconceptions of yours that you seem to keep raising.


FJ, it seems to me based on what you've said over these 2 threads is that your main problem with populism is that it messes up the economic systems.

It does tend to mess with economic systems quite often but populism based on racist belief (Nazis, xenophobia...), for example, is also bad.


That's it's main sin. chaos in the marketplace. disruption of business.

Its main sin is being incorrect. Solutions based on an incorrect diagnosis of actual problems tends to cause chaos and disruption.


Disturbance of an economic system that's made at least SOME people a lot of money. While others (who may be poor and completely disenfranchised in every way)

Hold on now, never have I ever said that people are required to accept their fate because SOME people made money. Nobody is required to be poor and disenfranchised in every way.


are, if not happy, at least at peace. under a system "that works" ... economically.
Be it a dictatorship (like Chile's), an oligarchy (like the globalist), or faux constitutional republic. as you've defined it here in the U.S..

I'm not quite sure where you're going with this but I think it'd be pretty tough to argue that things "worked" under Allende. Or if you're talking about present day Chile because they are no longer under a dictatorship. But that dictatorship did set the stage for a superior economic system. I have said in the past that between the right to vote and economic liberties that I would take the economic liberties.

And I'm not aware of any globalist oligarchies active in the world today and are you calling the US a "faux constitutional republic"? I haven't defined anything except that we are a constitutional republic. :unsure:


since you think we SHOULD NOT hinder multinational corps from making rules for any city in the U.S. where they do biz.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE ECONOMY. for the sake of "FREE TRADE", seems like your real bottom line.

I'm not aware of where I made that statement. I'm pretty sure my only statement has been that free trade is superior and that government shouldn't intervene in peoples economic purchases.


Not personal freedoms, or state, local or national sovereignty.
The stuff mentioned as the basis for the DOI and USConstitution.

:unsure: I'm all in favor of personal freedoms and local/state/national sovereignty.


populism is a threat to the flow of money.
reminds me of something.

Populism is a threat to rational thought.

I hope this helped although I'm guessing that it didn't fully. :)

[fj1200]

Speaking of Populists....

https://icansayit.com/icsi/nationalists.jpg


It's fun that you're trying but I think only two of those former POTUSi would qualify as populist.

[revelarts]

:brokenrecord:

Populists making their citizens go cashless for decades by making the currency worthless.

FJ please connect the dots for me on this one, I'm curious how you make that work.

[fj1200]

FJ please connect the dots for me on this one, I'm curious how you make that work.

Populists don't like cental banks because... you know... elites run it.
Populists demand government action on their behalf, protectionism, minimum wage laws, cash payments, student loans paid off, etc.
Populists aren't able to balance a national budget.
Populists are either forced to massively devalue their currency to global reserve currencies or just start printing money.

The worst of the last of those dots end in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Weimar Republic... but many times those dots just end up in places like Greece where prior to the Euro they could just bury their incompetence in a slowly devaluing currency.

[SassyLady]

I love using cash. I don't have anything I can wave at a register to pay for something. Not my phone, not a credit card, not an implanted chip or barcode tattooed somewhere.

[Kathianne]

Populism related. My tipoff to populism is when the movement has more to do with 'feelings' and 'one man' than with any real political philosophy or even ethics. McConnell is certainly the whipping boy for populists, regardless of his votes or his actions as Minority Leader. If not for him, Trump would have had very few successes. In the end though, none of that matters to populists:

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/09/01/rick-scott-certain-people-who-shall-remain-nameless-should-stop-trash-talking-our-senate-candidates-n493993


Rick Scott: Certain people who shall remain nameless should stop trash-talking our Senate candidates



ALLAHPUNDIT (https://hotair.com/author/allahpundit)Sep 01, 2022 8:41 PM ET

I’m putting this on your radar in case it becomes a major subplot in Republican politics this fall. Or even next year.


Mitch McConnell is a convenient scapegoat for populists for all sorts of things, most recently his perfectly accurate assessment that “candidate quality” among the GOP’s Senate recruits might help Democrats hold the Senate. Never mind that McConnell recently held a fundraiser with some of those same low-quality candidates. And never mind that his PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, is spending mega-bucks to help those candidates this fall — $34 million for Oz in Pennsylvania, $37 million for Walker in Georgia, $28 million for J.D. Vance in Ohio, where Republicans aren’t supposed to need to spend to win anymore.




McConnell makes for a nice whipping boy because practically everyone hates him. The left despises him for the Merrick Garland blockade in 2016, among other things, and the MAGA right despises him as the consummate go-along-to-get-along establishmentarian. (Never mind that whole Merrick Garland blockade.) Trump despises him because McConnell wouldn’t go along with his coup plot and took to denouncing him on the Senate floor after Trump was acquitted by the Senate. No one likes Mitch.


…Especially other Republicans who worry that they’ll be blamed instead of him if the GOP underperforms in Senate races in November.


Which makes this passage from a new op-ed by Rick Scott noteworthy.


Unfortunately, many of the very people responsible for losing the Senate last cycle are now trying to stop us from winning the majority this time by trash-talking our Republican candidates. It’s an amazing act of cowardice, and ultimately, it’s treasonous to the conservative cause. Giving anonymous quotes to help the Washington Post or the New York Times write stories trashing Republicans is the same as working with the Democratic National Committee.


If you want to talk about the need to raise more money to promote our candidates versus the Democrats’ terrible candidates, I agree. If you want to trash-talk our candidates to help the Democrats, pipe down. That’s not what leaders do. And Republicans need to be leaders that build up the team and do everything they can to get the entire team over the finish line.


Ultimately, though, when you complain and lament that we have “bad candidates,” what you are really saying is that you have contempt for the voters who chose them. Now we are at the heart of the matter. Much of Washington’s chattering class disrespects and secretly (or not so secretly) loathes Republican voters.




Whoever could he mean?


There are three reasons why the Scott/McConnell tension is worth watching. First, there’s history here. Scott pissed off McConnell and other Republicans when he insisted on publishing his own policy agenda for the midterms earlier this year. McConnell’s strategy has been not to offer any agenda to midterm voters, believing that that will help turn the election into a referendum on Biden and the Democrats. If voters go into the booth thinking about inflation and Afghanistan, Republicans will have a good night. If they go in there wondering if they prefer Biden’s policies to the Republican alternative, that could get dicey. McConnell’s worries were confirmed when Dems pounced on some of the recommendations in Scott’s plan, accusing him and the GOP of wanting to slash Social Security and Medicare and to force seniors who currently pay no federal income tax to pony up. Which led to this extremely cringy scene in March. Looks like there’s bad blood now.


Second, Scott isn’t just any Republican senator. He’s the chair this year of the NRSC, the group responsible for getting Republican candidates elected to the Senate. If the GOP flames out, the NRSC will be blamed. And if the NRSC is blamed, Scott will be blamed. The NRSC has already taken flak for burning through most of its war chest this cycle, leaving it with $28.5 million in the bank at the end of June compared to $53.5 million for its Democratic counterpart. The cash crunch led to the group dialing back ad spending in some key races this fall and an urgent plea from the head of the RNC to major donors to chip in soon before the Senate slips away. “People are asking, ‘What the hell is going on?’” said one GOP strategist to Politico about the disappearing ads. “Why are we cutting in August? I’ve never seen it like this before.” Meanwhile, Scott was recently caught vacationing on a yacht in Italy instead of hunkering down for the fight ahead. (I wonder who could have leaked that news to the media.) If GOP candidates in swing states get outspent by the Dems (very likely) and end up falling just short (increasingly plausible), fingers will point at Scott. So here he is pointing his own finger at McConnell in advance for having supposedly demoralized conservatives with his criticism or whatever.




Third, Scott has been touted as a potential challenger to McConnell to lead the GOP caucus. Trump is spoiling to topple Cocaine Mitch from leadership as revenge for opposing the coup plot and he makes no bones about it in interviews:




He’s been hunting around for someone with the stones to take on McConnell and reportedly approached Scott about doing so this past February. Members of Trump’s circle have also been known to hint that Scott might be interested in the job. He’s unlikely to defeat McConnell in a leadership challenge — but if the GOP wins big in Senate races this fall, things could get interesting. A bunch of new senators like Vance and Blake Masters whose politics don’t align with McConnell’s would be joining the caucus and Scott’s political star would be rising thanks to the NRSC’s big victory. If Trump threw his full weight behind a Scott leadership bid, threatening to primary any senator who opposes it, could that get more than half the caucus to ditch Mitch and support Scott?




Probably not. But as I said up top, the McConnell vs. Scott feud is now in full flower. Stay tuned.

[fj1200]

Populism related. My tipoff to populism is when the movement has more to do with 'feelings' and 'one man' than with any real political philosophy or even ethics. McConnell is certainly the whipping boy for populists, regardless of his votes or his actions as Minority Leader. If not for him, Trump would have had very few successes. In the end though, none of that matters to populists:

https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2022/09/01/rick-scott-certain-people-who-shall-remain-nameless-should-stop-trash-talking-our-senate-candidates-n493993

I expect populism on the left because at heart it leads to a big-government end and prior to 6 years ago I didn't really expect it from the right. But here we are.

[fj1200]

Same here, I've talked some of these younger people living out of hotels trying make enough to rent an apartment or a home. 2 jobs, 3 jobs, kids in daycare. it's messed up.
But unemployment needs to go up 50% man ... cause lazy worker are demanding too much is what i'm told.


https://i0.wp.com/www.savespendsplurge.com/wp-content/uploads/minimum-wage-comparisons-workers-job-career.jpg?w=466&ssl=1


What's the take-away here? Minimum wage increase? income tax hike? price controls? wealth tax?

That could easily be a skilled-worker continuum. I was talking to my daughter yesterday in the originalist Chic-Fil-A EVAR yesterday and she asked me what the workers made? I guessed 12-15 per hour and then asked her what she thought is should be and she said 30 per hour (and at 13 these numbers are almost meaningless). Then I told her that most of the workers there are unskilled and the median wage in GA is 43k per year and she suggested that they make 60k per year. I told her that she could probably do their job with 10 minutes of training.

[Black Diamond]

What's the take-away here? Minimum wage increase? income tax hike? price controls? wealth tax?

That could easily be a skilled-worker continuum. I was talking to my daughter yesterday in the originalist Chic-Fil-A EVAR yesterday and she asked me what the workers made? I guessed 12-15 per hour and then asked her what she thought is should be and she said 30 per hour (and at 13 these numbers are almost meaningless). Then I told her that most of the workers there are unskilled and the median wage in GA is 43k per year and she suggested that they make 60k per year. I told her that she could probably do their job with 10 minutes of training.

My thoight was that Joe's inflation was the cause of making these people's lives worse.

[fj1200]

My thoight was that Joe's inflation was the cause of making these people's lives worse.

don and joe's inflation? ;) That, and airbnb, and housing regulations, and left NIMBYs, and having covid money dumped in their hands, and, and, and... Many things not summed up in a meme.

meme posts, equally as bad as video posts in getting information across.

[Black Diamond]

don and joe's inflation? ;) That, and airbnb, and housing regulations, and left NIMBYs, and having covid money dumped in their hands, and, and, and... Many things not summed up in a meme.

meme posts, equally as bad as video posts in getting information across.

I've hesdf it argued it goes back to Bush's bailouts.

[fj1200]

I've hesdf it argued it goes back to Bush's bailouts.

Bush I S&L bailouts in the 90s or Bush II bailouts in 08? My personal argument is that it goes back to 9/11 and the Fed's excessive easing per the Taylor Rule.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.frbatlanta.org%2F-%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fblogs%2Fmacroblog%2F2020%2F01% 2F08%2Fis-there-a-taylor-rule-for-all-seasons%2F2020-01-08-macroblog-chart.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b0e5632bb075d3041d7bad532c1de71d6b5b015e0b877b 15cbd8e7d167b7df5f&ipo=images

[Black Diamond]

Bush I S&L bailouts in the 90s or Bush II bailouts in 08? My personal argument is that it goes back to 9/11 and the Fed's excessive easing per the Taylor Rule.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.frbatlanta.org%2F-%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fblogs%2Fmacroblog%2F2020%2F01% 2F08%2Fis-there-a-taylor-rule-for-all-seasons%2F2020-01-08-macroblog-chart.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b0e5632bb075d3041d7bad532c1de71d6b5b015e0b877b 15cbd8e7d167b7df5f&ipo=images

LOL. 2008. I thought I was gonna be accused of going back too far. :laugh:

[fj1200]

LOL. 2008. I thought I was gonna be accused of going back too far. :laugh:

Rev would probably go back to 1913. ;)

:laugh:

[fj1200]

Pence blasts Trump’s approach as ‘populism’ over ‘conservatism’ in blistering speech (https://nypost.com/2023/09/06/pence-calls-trumps-approach-populism-over-conservatism/)I would say that he's not wrong.

[revelarts]

Rev would probably go back to 1913. ;)

:laugh:
yess, highlights of U.S. Economic laws pre-1913

No federal reserve!!
Money backed by Gold.
No personal federal income tax.
No Gift tax or estate tax.
No Social Security taxes.

No litany of laws protecting corporations over small biz.
If I remember correctly only businesses were taxed.

While there are quite few laws addressing the national economy post-1913 that i do think are good. Many are simply Pro-Corporate, anti-small biz, anti-worker, and anti-community.
(of course some were biz stifling too and should be gone as well. but Big money usually finds around them anyway.)

[fj1200]

yess, highlights of U.S. Economic laws pre-1913

No federal reserve!!
Money backed by Gold.
No personal federal income tax.
No Gift tax or estate tax.
No Social Security taxes.

No litany of laws protecting corporations over small biz.
If I remember correctly only businesses were taxed.

While there are quite few laws addressing the national economy post-1913 that i do think are good. Many are simply Pro-Corporate, anti-small biz, anti-worker, and anti-community.
(of course some were biz stifling too and should be gone as well. but Big money usually finds around them anyway.)

No minimum wage laws, no worker protections, no environmental protection, etc. You know things that people are ga-ga over. Also, note below what was wrought under a "gold standard."

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capture-32.png

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capture1-16.png

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capture2-7.png

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capture3-3.png

The gold standard. Not that the Fed was much better in the early days.

[AHZ]

so which is it fj?

populism is always wrong or sometimes appropriate?

and what about this guy who wants 50% unemployment so workers are "relieved of their arrogance"?

so much for "free trade" raising all ships eh?

and did corporations create the middle class on their own or did labor reforms create the middle class?

do you believe in a middle class?

oh and how are the elites faring at balancing the budget, btw?

and still, nobody has explained how it's smart to send all the jobs away. it's only good for the short term profit of corporations.

globalization makes trickle down a lie.

globalists (internationalist fascists) are the enemies of all humans, by the design of the eugenics nazis who actually won wwII.

[AHZ]

No minimum wage laws, no worker protections, no environmental protection, etc. You know things that people are ga-ga over. Also, note below what was wrought under a "gold standard."

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capture-32.png

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capture1-16.png

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capture2-7.png

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Capture3-3.png

The gold standard. Not that the Fed was much better in the early days.

is it your understanding that the fed is "good" now?

[AHZ]

oh and we don't have to have fiat currency to have welfare programs.

thats just a dumb thing you said.

[Black Diamond]

oh and we don't have to have fiat currency to have welfar programs.

thats just a dumb thing you said.

You didn't miss a beat.

[AHZ]

You didn't miss a beat.


missing beats is not my policy.

saving humanity from the nazis is too important.


:dance:

[Black Diamond]

:laugh:

[Gunny]

missing beats is not my policy.

saving humanity from the nazis is too important.


:dance:You might as wll say goodbye to everyone now. You're not going to survive Nighttrain.

[Black Diamond]

You might as wll say goodbye to everyone now. You're not going to survive Nighttrain.

He's ready to crash and burn.
He never learns.

[fj1200]

so which is it fj?

populism is always wrong or sometimes appropriate?

and what about this guy who wants 50% unemployment so workers are "relieved of their arrogance"?

so much for "free trade" raising all ships eh?

and did corporations create the middle class on their own or did labor reforms create the middle class?

do you believe in a middle class?

oh and how are the elites faring at balancing the budget, btw?

and still, nobody has explained how it's smart to send all the jobs away. it's only good for the short term profit of corporations.

globalization makes trickle down a lie.

globalists (internationalist fascists) are the enemies of all humans, by the design of the eugenics nazis who actually won wwII.

That's quite the bit of word vomit you stored up over the past 24 hours. Populism is always wrong but I never said a populist never said anything correct. The blind-squirrel theorem.

[fj1200]

is it your understanding that the fed is "good" now?

Two things you should have taken away from that post, 1. The gold standard isn't the panacea you think it is. B. Think about number 1 again if you still don't understand.

The Fed is better now and better than the alternative.

[fj1200]

oh and we don't have to have fiat currency to have welfare programs.

thats just a dumb thing you said.

Wow, good thing I didn't say that. Study up on word usage please.

[fj1200]

One thing I will say is that the best, recent example of a "gold standard" was the post-war Bretton Woods system. The US currency was tied to gold while the most of the major economies were tied to the US dollar. Details aside, it failed for the same reason that any other standard would fail, the government mismanaged the process and ultimately Nixon needed to delink gold convertibility that was essential to the system essentially making everything a floating currency; the economics of the 70s were set in stone. The underlying problem was that the Fed missed the market signals of the French loading up ships with our gold signifying that there were too many dollars floating around the global economy and France made the rational choice of converting cheap dollars into more valuable gold.

Fiat currency, gold backed currency, it's all dependent on it being managed properly. Either can fail, neither is perfect.

[AHZ]

One thing I will say is that the best, recent example of a "gold standard" was the post-war Bretton Woods system. The US currency was tied to gold while the most of the major economies were tied to the US dollar. Details aside, it failed for the same reason that any other standard would fail, the government mismanaged the process and ultimately Nixon needed to delink gold convertibility that was essential to the system essentially making everything a floating currency; the economics of the 70s were set in stone. The underlying problem was that the Fed missed the market signals of the French loading up ships with our gold signifying that there were too many dollars floating around the global economy and France made the rational choice of converting cheap dollars into more valuable gold.

Fiat currency, gold backed currency, it's all dependent on it being managed properly. Either can fail, neither is perfect.


Fiat is worse.

at least with the commodity backed currency mismanagement has a natural limit.

there is no limit in a fiat system. It's mismanagement as far as the eye can see.

the temptation is to great for moneymakers to keep making more money and figuring out way to funnel it immediately back to themselves, and use it to buy all the worlds assets as well.

fiat currency is totalitarianism, in essence.

[fj1200]

Fiat is worse.

at least with the commodity backed currency mismanagement has a natural limit.

there is no limit in a fiat system. It's mismanagement as far as the eye can see.

the temptation is to great for moneymakers to keep making more money and figuring out way to funnel it immediately back to themselves, and use it to buy all the worlds assets as well.

fiat currency is totalitarianism, in essence.

You don't understand history. EVERY gold backed currency has failed. Full stop.

[AHZ]

That's quite the bit of word vomit you stored up over the past 24 hours. Populism is always wrong but I never said a populist never said anything correct. The blind-squirrel theorem.


was the american revolution populism?

that was a good point i read somewhere on the thread. kudos to whoever.

[AHZ]

You don't understand history. EVERY gold backed currency has failed. Full stop.


I stand by my previous statement.

fiat is worse. it has no corrective mechanism.

i think that's why its preferred by the mismanagers.

[fj1200]

was the american revolution populism?

that was a good point i read somewhere on the thread. kudos to whoever.

No.

[AHZ]

No.


I believe it was.

[fj1200]

I stand by my previous statement.

fiat is worse. it has no corrective mechanism.

i think that's why its preferred by the mismanagers.

You stand by it in the face of all evidence. And it has the same corrective mechanisms as any other.

"EVERY gold backed currency has failed" is the only true statement here.

[fj1200]

I believe it was.

Why?

[AHZ]

You stand by it in the face of all evidence. And it has the same corrective mechanisms as any other.

"EVERY gold backed currency has failed" is the only true statement here.


the mismanagers have discontinued them on purpose as of late.


sound currency would be less totalitarian,

but like pence, "that's not your concern".

all fiat currencies have failed. also a true statement.

[AHZ]

Why?


hold on.

wait a minute.

is monarchy elitist?

[fj1200]

the mismanagers have discontinued them on purpose as of late.


sound currency would be less totalitarian,

but like pence, "that's not your concern".

all fiat currencies have failed. also a true statement.

When you don't understand monetary policy how can you make comments about monetary policy?

Your "true" statement is clearly not.

[fj1200]

hold on.

wait a minute.

is monarchy elitist?

I asked first.

[AHZ]

When you don't understand monetary policy how can you make comments about monetary policy?

Your "true" statement is clearly not.


oh right, all fiat currencies have failed except for the current ones circling the drain.

and then theres the brics dollar.

[Kathianne]

oh right, all fiat currencies have failed except for the current ones circling the drain.

and then theres the brics dollar.
I've read through all of the posts here today. AHZ, you are repeating and repeating the same thing. Then you get non-responsive with 'monarchy.' You have been warned. Rick is not going to make us repeat warnings to you.

[fj1200]

oh right, all fiat currencies have failed except for the current ones circling the drain.

and then theres the brics dollar.

My statement is true on its own. Your statement is false on its own otherwise you wouldn't need the caveat.

There is no brics "dollar." The Euro works because the Deutschmark didn't fail (also rendering your claim false) which means that they had a track record of monetary management. None of the brics has that history.

[AHZ]

I've read through all of the posts here today. AHZ, you are repeating and repeating the same thing. Then you get non-responsive with 'monarchy.' You have been warned. Rick is not going to make us repeat warnings to you.


IS monarchy elitist?

[Kathianne]

IS monarchy elitist?
Not playing. Thread banned.

[fj1200]

Merely opposing an "elite" isn't the definition of populism. Or at least not the definition that I posited in the OP.

[Gunny]

Merely opposing an "elite" isn't the definition of populism. Or at least not the definition that I posited in the OP.Authoritarian, neoliberalism isn't the definition of populism either/

[SassyLady]

14412

[fj1200]

Why is DeSantis a populist?

[Kathianne]

Why is DeSantis a populist?

I think he can act like a populist, like with Disney. Then he can totally work hand-in-glove with the feds with hurricane bearing down. He seems to master calming a worried citizenry and then taking the executive actions necessary to get through crisis.

Think Trump during Covid. After doing everything to bring vaccine to people asap, as the medical community told him-a non-doctor- that it would be the key to changing trajectory. He acquired the ventilators that the big cities felt they had to have yesterday. In truth, bottom line, he did all he could, but then stopped acting presidential. He started picking fights and too often seemed over his head. Seriously a good executive does know how 'to fake until you can make it.' Trump didn't. He lost.

[Gunny]

I think he can act like a populist, like with Disney. Then he can totally work hand-in-glove with the feds with hurricane bearing down. He seems to master calming a worried citizenry and then taking the executive actions necessary to get through crisis.

Think Trump during Covid. After doing everything to bring vaccine to people asap, as the medical community told him-a non-doctor- that it would be the key to changing trajectory. He acquired the ventilators that the big cities felt they had to have yesterday. In truth, bottom line, he did all he could, but then stopped acting presidential. He started picking fights and too often seemed over his head. Seriously a good executive does know how 'to fake until you can make it.' Trump didn't. He lost.

My opinion that most using the word "populist" use it incorrectly. Right-extremists looking for an easy hand and everyone else looking for a new dirty word. Nothing like America v the dictionary:rolleyes:

[revelarts]

I see populism as a counter balance to the slowly erosion of power from the people to the elites who think the majority of Americans can't decide what's best for themselves. Populism needs to happen to reset the boundaries.

Unfortunately, those who are comfortable in the current state of affairs try to shame those who are starting to speak up and show their outrage.

:clap:

The label populism seems only applied by those who don't like what a they perceive as "popular" politically that doesn't fit in the establishment lanes. or doesn't fit anymore.

When popular proposal aligns with what the constitution says an honest person should simply call it a return to the constitution.
When popular proposal aligns with what the law has said for years... as with immigration. it should be called "the standard immigration policy".
When popular proposal aligns with what is known as Fascism then it should be called Fascism.
When popular proposal aligns with what is known as Socialism/communism then it should be called Socialism/communism.

If a politician proposes a mix bag of "popular" proposals then every person has to make their assessment of the person and proposals. Calling them a populist doesn't tell you anything except that the person labeling them does not like some/most of the proposals.
And senses a threat to the establishment.

The term populist is generally contentless except to say that it in some way is unbound to & or upsets the status quo.

As apposed to terms like globalist, elitist, banksters, rinos, progressives, paleo-conservative, patriots, constitutionalists, authoritarians, imperialists, nationalist, anarchist, gaslighters etc.

[revelarts]

"The term populist is generally contentless except to say that it in some way is unbound to & or upsets the status quo."

And since the present political status quo is generally BAD then the present "populism" is generally GOOD.



Question: are these populist policies or something else?

End the Patriot Act.
End FISA 702.
End no-conviction watchlists.
End NDAA indefinite detention.
End the 2001 AUMF.
End the illegal wars.

[Gunny]

Populism:




a political approach that strives (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=567639170&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS750US750&q=strives&si=ALGXSlYwkgxr-HbbJwcOTTqB6ethyUOxJsiR4_PVaKHBdBKowfrEjUDmP4htTYz i8zoFW4dhmysMi52_CgI3H_OQGBkDPRNa_w%3D%3D&expnd=1) to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=567639170&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS750US750&q=disregarded&si=ALGXSla0Spp1kHC9LAamd4BHsp51Az_Row52bmrZLiXdx7J nMxgEuKDFBEEpg4UldTSgmkvhu_JTG2qozFQwEc-fH_2FE7MXFECyXL1DVDGWdKrW3YmyAPM%3D&expnd=1) by established elite groups.
"the question is whether he will tone down his fiery populism now that he has joined the political establishment"






support for populist (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=567639170&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS750US750&q=populist&si=ALGXSlY2XXqfLjvIaFfTE-GUlBx5nl7ja6ygqDL-1DuPJbPNONkx3YJWW06HV2lPrB2AiERpMLW0XPCWHeTqfQrPVJ nszES9kQ%3D%3D&expnd=1) politicians or policies.
"the government came to power on a wave of populism"




the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people.
"art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new populism"










https://www.google.com/search?q=populism+definition&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS750US750&oq=populsim&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0i10i131i433i512l2j0i10i512l2j0 i10i131i433i512j0i10i512l4.7605j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

What is populism in American politics?


In American political rhetoric, "populist" was originally associated with the Populist Party and related left-wing movements, but beginning in the 1950s it began to take on a more generic meaning, describing any anti-establishment movement regardless of its position on the left–right political spectrum.



For many observers of politics in Europe and the Americas in 2022, the combination of words that forms “right-wing populist” trips easily off the tongue. Right-wing populist politicians, such as Jair Bolsonaro, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán, or Donald Trump, are frequently named as such in the press. But populism is an approach (https://www.versobooks.com/books/2811-on-populist-reason) to politics⁠—not a singular and comprehensive theory of governance. It is, in fact, a tactic that has long been used around the world, at least since the nineteenth century (https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/contributions/15/1/choc150103.xml), to gain and maintain power.

What is populism?
It is difficult to definitively characterize populism, but one helpful definition (https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-Understanding-Global-Rise-of-Populism.pdf) describes it as “reflecting a deep suspicion of the prevailing establishment, which is believed to conspire against the people instead of working in their interests.” Populists believe that the people, however defined, are (https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-Understanding-Global-Rise-of-Populism.pdf) the “true repositories of the soul of the nation.” Donald Trump’s frequent references (https://academic.oup.com/book/41499/chapter/352912101) to his supporters as “real” Americans are a classic populist rhetorical move.
The concept of populism has a distinctly pejorative connotation. It is a label that politicians apply to their opponents, but rarely claim for themselves (as Mudde and Kaltwasser aver (https://books.google.se/books/about/Populism.html?id=KHquDQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)). The fundamental claim (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/populist-zeitgeist/2CD34F8B25C4FFF4F322316833DB94B7) of populism is that there is a singular “people” who are in opposition to “the elite.” The populist claims to be the representative of “the people.” In this way, a populist movement would describe itself as authentically democratic⁠—in contrast with the “politics as usual” that only supports the interest of “the elite.”
Populists can be from the right or left of the political divide; left-wing populists (https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/left-wing-populism/) (also known as social populists) combine left-wing politics with populist themes and rhetoric while right-wing populists (https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/right-wing-populism/) (also known as national populists) do the same on the right side of the political spectrum. Writing about Western Europe in 2018, Chantal Mouffe argued (https://www.versobooks.com/books/3097-for-a-left-populism) that the “central axis of political conflict will be between right-wing populism and left-wing populism.” Populism does not always have to be extreme, but it is almost never centrist. For example, populist appeals have been commonly found in Canadian politics, coming from the left-wing New Democratic Party and from the right-wing Conservative Party (and its predecessor in the form of the Reform Party), but not from the centrist Liberal Party.
While both left-wing and right-wing populists object to the perceived control of liberal democracies by elites, those on the left also have problems with large corporations and their allies while those on the right focus on external threats. Left-wing populists (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/understanding-right-and-left-populisms/) perceive the enemy of the people to be socio-economic structures rather than particular groups of people. Right-wing populists (https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/understanding-right-and-left-populisms/) define the enemy of the people to be “other” people, such as immigrants, refugees, etc. They tend to be skeptical of the facts presented by the establishment press, may be suspicious of intellectuals and want to be from “somewhere” as opposed to “anywhere.” (https://www.adlibris.com/se/bok/the-road-to-somewhere-9780141986975) That is, they want to be rooted in a specific community and place, as opposed to being comfortable nearly anywhere.
The recently completed second-round presidential election in Brazil is a case in point: both candidates can reasonably be characterized as populists, one from the left and one from the right.
Though it may appear to be a recent trend, populism has been around for a long time. One study shows (https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/cost-populism-evidence-history) that it can be serial in nature. It is also closely related to societal polarization. As the graph below illustrates, public opinion regarding the division of society between (https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r4y42306xf/Globalism21%20_PopulismTracker_AllCountries.pdf) “ordinary people and the corrupt elites who exploit them” is highly correlated with social polarization (negative scores here indicate a more polarized society).

Why is populism a threat to democracy?
Right-wing populism’s incompatibility with democracy is clear when one carefully considers who “the people” often are in the populist imagination. They are not all the people. They are the minimum winning coalition of the people, and usually a part of the people that are defined in terms of their ascriptive characteristics (e.g., white). Such an exclusionary view of “the people” cannot be reconciled with democracy’s requirement of political equality.
The picture for left-wing populism looks rather different, lacking this prima facie contradiction with democracy. As an example, the Workers’ Party (PT) in Brazil has built a notably diverse coalition of support, still making (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2633779.pdf) the claim that the party represents the interests of “the people” against the elite. However, the claim that a party or politician speaks for the authentic and singular people can become difficult to square with democracy, as the descent of Venezuela into authoritarianism under the left-wing populist (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/populism-in-europe-and-the-americas/populism-and-democracy-in-venezuela-under-hugo-chavez/FA3183273C9744A9A70FE4EBF71EB826) Hugo Chavez illustrates.
As an ideal, democracy includes all the people, considered as equals, finding a collective path toward the best possible policies to address the challenges that they face.

https://www.idea.int/blog/explainer-populism-left-and-right-progressive-and-regressive

[Kathianne]

I guess I fall in the neo-liberal zone. From what I can see, those being all gung ho on populism are playing with communism at worst, socialism at best. They seem to dream of a glorious past, where the problems of competition are rendered moot. That only happens in theoretical communism. Hint, it doesn't play out well for any but the ELITE.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kate-Alexander-Shaw/publication/350459826/figure/fig2/AS:1006660164259841@1617017894102/Populism-social-democracy-and-neoliberalism-as-a-venn-diagram.png

[revelarts]

Populism:

"...appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups...."

What is populism in American politics?
"In American political rhetoric, "populist" was originally associated with the Populist Party and related left-wing movements, but beginning in the 1950s it began to take on a more generic meaning, describing any anti-establishment movement regardless of its position on the left–right political spectrum."


https://www.idea.int/blog/explainer-populism-left-and-right-progressive-and-regressive

yes pretty much what i said,

"The term populist is generally contentless except to say that it in some way is unbound to & or upsets the status quo."
As apposed to terms like globalist, elitist, banksters, rinos, progressives, paleo-conservative, patriots, constitutionalists, authoritarians, imperialists, nationalist, anarchist, gaslighters etc.

[Gunny]

yes pretty much what i said,

"The term populist is generally contentless except to say that it in some way is unbound to & or upsets the status quo."
As apposed to terms like globalist, elitist, banksters, rinos, progressives, paleo-conservative, patriots, constitutionalists, authoritarians, imperialists, nationalist, anarchist, gaslighters etc.The definitions don't fit the word. I struggle with that and the whole "words mean things".

Best I can tell, "populism" doesn't work as anything (as I stated way back when) without an adjective. Minus the adjective, it gives way for people to dance in and out of one definition and/or ideology to another as they see fit. That allows users to who cannot debate and don't know what they're talking about to keep the discussion in chaos rather than address issues.

[Kathianne]

The definitions don't fit the word. I struggle with that and the whole "words mean things".

Best I can tell, "populism" doesn't work as anything (as I stated way back when) without an adjective. Minus the adjective, it gives way for people to dance in and out of one definition and/or ideology to another as they see fit. That allows users to who cannot debate and don't know what they're talking about to keep the discussion in chaos rather than address issues.

From listening to the pretty ignorant fanatic, I've seen more and more that it's a logic towards communism, for those that see themselves as anything but communist.

[Black Diamond]

The definitions don't fit the word. I struggle with that and the whole "words mean things".

Best I can tell, "populism" doesn't work as anything (as I stated way back when) without an adjective. Minus the adjective, it gives way for people to dance in and out of one definition and/or ideology to another as they see fit. That allows users to who cannot debate and don't know what they're talking about to keep the discussion in chaos rather than address issues.

Labels are ambiguous and are many times in the eye of the beholder. Even left vs right.

[Kathianne]

Labels are ambiguous and are many times in the eye of the beholder. Even left vs right.

True.

In general I think one can get an idea of someone's political perspective given what they see the role of government as, keeping in mind the differences between in US case; fed, state, county/parish, local

Barely there----always there
Help in catastrophic disaster-----be ready when stitches are required
Hands off wealth-----make sure everyone has what they need

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F56r3lTXQAACfSr?format=webp&name=small


So is dealing with inflation and the general cost of living/housing a "populist" issue?

what label does a candidate get for bringing it up?

[Gunny]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F56r3lTXQAACfSr?format=webp&name=small


So is dealing with inflation and the general cost of living/housing a "populist" issue?

what label does a candidate get for bringing it up?Think you might be taking it too far? Everything has a name. It's how we humanoids identify stuff.

Here again, we agree in principle about the word. The word is benign, literally, without context. As I pointed out with the political definition, the word has been morphed into something it isn't. In each and every source I looked at, populist is always defined with adjectives that are mostly political ideology.

I'm more interested in how it's being used and for who.

[Kathianne]

Think you might be taking it too far? Everything has a name. It's how we humanoids identify stuff.

Here again, we agree in principle about the word. The word is benign, literally, without context. As I pointed out with the political definition, the word has been morphed into something it isn't. In each and every source I looked at, populist is always defined with adjectives that are mostly political ideology.

I'm more interested in how it's being used and for who.

Yeah, I don't get this particular example. In 1981 we bought our first home for $90k. One income around $50k. In 1985 sold same house for $145k. Still one income $95k. Second home we bought for $130k sold for $220k 5 years later.

Differing income levels. Different choices in types of housing. Different locations. Different careers....

[Gunny]

Yeah, I don't get this particular example. In 1981 we bought our first home for $90k. One income around $50k. In 1985 sold same house for $145k. Still one income $95k. Second home we bought for $130k sold for $220k 5 years later.

Differing income levels. Different choices in types of housing. Different locations. Different careers....That is an individual circumstance though. I roughly did the same regarding houses. I don't think "everybody does it" makes it populist.

I also have a hard time with the difference between "populist" and "popular". If you are a government insider/politician you are a popular candidate. If you are an anti-establishment/powers-that-be candidate you are populist.

[Kathianne]

That is an individual circumstance though. I roughly did the same regarding houses. I don't think "everybody does it" makes it populist.

I also have a hard time with the difference between "populist" and "popular". If you are a government insider/politician you are a popular candidate. If you are an anti-establishment/powers-that-be candidate you are populist.

I think the clue to populist is a vein of antigovernment. I think AHZ fits. Rev is pro constitution, not so much populist. I may be wrong but rev would go off on antibiotics unconstitutional moves, regardless of who. AHZ has no problem with same if it fits his/leader's goals.

[Gunny]

I think the clue to populist is a vein of antigovernment. I think AHZ fits. Rev is pro constitution, not so much populist. I may be wrong but rev would go off on antibiotics unconstitutional moves, regardless of who. AHZ has no problem with same if it fits his/leader's goals.

So while a leader can be populist, it doesn't change the fact that he/she is a totalitarian, megalomaniacal, elitist neoliberal. It just means the latter is dismissed/ignored because outsider/anti-establishment is all followers are listening to. :)

[Black Diamond]

Remember when Sarah Palin said "The man can only ride ya when your back is bent....."

That sounded like populism to me.

[Gunny]

Remember when Sarah Palin said "The man can only ride ya when your back is bent....."

That sounded like populism to me.Was she not considered a populist? I thought so. Based on how political populists are defined, she was a party outsider who held office as a Republican.

[Black Diamond]

Was she not considered a populist? I thought so. Based on how political populists are defined, she was a party outsider who held office as a Republican.

I don't know. I thought trump was the first to wear the label. But I think tons of politicians and candidates throughout the years we could make the case that they at least run as one.

[revelarts]

Remember when Sarah Palin said "The man can only ride ya when your back is bent....."

That sounded like populism to me.

She was quoting MLKing.
was he a populist?

[Black Diamond]

She was quoting MLK.
was he a populist?

Probably

[Gunny]

Yeah internment camps
Here's a little deja vu trivia for you:

Had not former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt turned on his protege, the incumbent Taft, and split the the Republican party with his populist Bull Moose Party, Woodrow Wilson would most likely have lost the 1912 election. Arguably the President that did more for Jim Crow than any other single human being, lied us into WWI over the Lusitania that was sunk 2 years prior (after he ran for reelection on keeping the US out of WWI), and started the globalist BS League of Nations wouldn never have been elected.

But for Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party.

[Kathianne]

I don't know. I thought trump was the first to wear the label. But I think tons of politicians and candidates throughout the years we could make the case that they at least run as one.

Pretty sure TR beat him.

[Kathianne]

Here's a little deja vu trivia for you:

Had not former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt turned on his protege, the incumbent Taft, and split the the Republican party with his populist Bull Moose Party, Woodrow Wilson would most likely have lost the 1912 election. Arguably the President that did more for Jim Crow than any other single human being, lied us into WWI over the Lusitania that was sunk 2 years prior (after he ran for reelection on keeping the US out of WWI), and started the globalist BS League of Nations wouldn never have been elected.

But for Theodore Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party.

Just read this after my TR post.

[fj1200]

I think he can act like a populist, like with Disney. Then he can totally work hand-in-glove with the feds with hurricane bearing down. He seems to master calming a worried citizenry and then taking the executive actions necessary to get through crisis.

Think Trump during Covid. After doing everything to bring vaccine to people asap, as the medical community told him-a non-doctor- that it would be the key to changing trajectory. He acquired the ventilators that the big cities felt they had to have yesterday. In truth, bottom line, he did all he could, but then stopped acting presidential. He started picking fights and too often seemed over his head. Seriously a good executive does know how 'to fake until you can make it.' Trump didn't. He lost.

I don't think I really put him in the populist category. He didn't mess around with Disney until Disney abused their privilege of a state-granted, self-governing of a sort, authority in the "don't say gay" bill. They stepped over the line and he took umbrage to say the least.


My opinion that most using the word "populist" use it incorrectly. Right-extremists looking for an easy hand and everyone else looking for a new dirty word. Nothing like America v the dictionary:rolleyes:

Definitions may vary but popular does not necessarily equal populist. Hence my definition in the OP.

[fj1200]

:clap:

The label populism seems only applied by those who don't like what a they perceive as "popular" politically that doesn't fit in the establishment lanes. or doesn't fit anymore.

When popular proposal aligns with what the constitution says an honest person should simply call it a return to the constitution.
When popular proposal aligns with what the law has said for years... as with immigration. it should be called "the standard immigration policy".
When popular proposal aligns with what is known as Fascism then it should be called Fascism.
When popular proposal aligns with what is known as Socialism/communism then it should be called Socialism/communism.

If a politician proposes a mix bag of "popular" proposals then every person has to make their assessment of the person and proposals. Calling them a populist doesn't tell you anything except that the person labeling them does not like some/most of the proposals.
And senses a threat to the establishment.

The term populist is generally contentless except to say that it in some way is unbound to & or upsets the status quo.

As apposed to terms like globalist, elitist, banksters, rinos, progressives, paleo-conservative, patriots, constitutionalists, authoritarians, imperialists, nationalist, anarchist, gaslighters etc.

Populist does not necessarily equal popular and vice versa. You can be against a Gilded Age Robber Baron that obtained wealth due to government granted monopoly and/or you can be against a Gilded Age Robber Baron that obtained wealth due to true innovation. If you lump those two Gilded Age Robber Barons together then you're a populist because you don't understand the difference.


"The term populist is generally contentless except to say that it in some way is unbound to & or upsets the status quo."

And since the present political status quo is generally BAD then the present "populism" is generally GOOD.



Question: are these populist policies or something else?

End the Patriot Act.
End FISA 702.
End no-conviction watchlists.
End NDAA indefinite detention.
End the 2001 AUMF.
End the illegal wars.

In my mind if popular does not equal truth then it leans toward populist. Just because you like something doesn't make it populist. Not everything a populist says is a populist position; they might be correct by dumb luck.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F56r3lTXQAACfSr?format=webp&name=small


So is dealing with inflation and the general cost of living/housing a "populist" issue?

what label does a candidate get for bringing it up?

Where is that house? I see palm trees. California?

[Kathianne]

Populist does not necessarily equal popular and vice versa. You can be against a Gilded Age Robber Baron that obtained wealth due to government granted monopoly and/or you can be against a Gilded Age Robber Baron that obtained wealth due to true innovation. If you lump those two Gilded Age Robber Barons together then you're a populist because you don't understand the difference.



In my mind if popular does not equal truth then it leans toward populist. Just because you like something doesn't make it populist. Not everything a populist says is a populist position; they might be correct by dumb luck.



Where is that house? I see palm trees. California?
That was my point. Thank you!

Well not CA or FL or AZ, but where? Mentions teaching and a salary that only went up $4k? More likely AZ. LOL!

[fj1200]

I guess I fall in the neo-liberal zone. From what I can see, those being all gung ho on populism are playing with communism at worst, socialism at best. They seem to dream of a glorious past, where the problems of competition are rendered moot. That only happens in theoretical communism. Hint, it doesn't play out well for any but the ELITE.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kate-Alexander-Shaw/publication/350459826/figure/fig2/AS:1006660164259841@1617017894102/Populism-social-democracy-and-neoliberalism-as-a-venn-diagram.png

The problem with being a populist is that there really is no such thing as populism. There is no way to define "primacy of the people" and "anti-elite" other than a simplistic viewpoint. Reasserting the nation-state I wouldn't put in the populist category because anyone could believe in the sovereignty of their nation. And protectionists are allowed to be wrong even though it seems to be a hallmark of the current populists.


From listening to the pretty ignorant fanatic, I've seen more and more that it's a logic towards communism, for those that see themselves as anything but communist.

Yes, especially the ignorant fanatics who don't know how, or where, to stop the drift leftward.

Populism: Ever Leftward.

[Kathianne]

When I read 'nation-state' I think of the 'glorious past' of a shared, homogenous people-something the US never has been, but some would like to see. Obviously that is not realistic in the sense of a 'pure' Aryan nation or the xenophobic aspects of many Asian countries to keep their nations, 'pure.'

[fj1200]

That was my point. Thank you!

Well not CA or FL or AZ, but where? Mentions teaching and a salary that only went up $4k? More likely AZ. LOL!

I was discussing CA this past weekend and housing prices and people locked into houses that they can't move out of because their tax rates are Prop-whatever limited from the 80s? and how it's distorted the CA housing market along with NIMBYs, anti-growth, etc. Many of those lots with older homes could have been torn down for density and/or just plain housing stock that would have put more supply into the market not to mention just old people not moving and keeping their house off the market when it rightly should have been.

I also compared it to tenured teachers not moving on and opening up teaching slots for new professors. But that's a different topic.

[Kathianne]

I was discussing CA this past weekend and housing prices and people locked into houses that they can't move out of because their tax rates are Prop-whatever limited from the 80s? and how it's distorted the CA housing market along with NIMBYs, anti-growth, etc. Many of those lots with older homes could have been torn down for density and/or just plain housing stock that would have put more supply into the market not to mention just old people not moving and keeping their house off the market when it rightly should have been.

I also compared it to tenured teachers not moving on and opening up teaching slots for new professors. But that's a different topic.

I might be wrong and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be hard to find out, but I don't think there are nearly as many 'older teachers' staying past the normal 20-25 years in positions as in the past. Covid's real impact has been in education, to children, teachers, and parent-school relationships.

Student behavior issues have multiplied many times over. More 'able' students were moved to private schools that remained open or homeschooled-they are not returning. All school districts, but those in lower socio-economic areas are having a huge problem keeping 1 year teachers to complete that year. Many that make it do not return for year 2. I'm betting schools are more likely to dangle tenure sooner to teachers, hoping to get them to renew to a year 2 or 3. Seriously though, the salaries and benefits at that point in most districts are not high enough to prevent quitting if situation doesn't improve.

Teacher shortages and too many 'inexperienced' teachers is very problematic for youngest students in particular-especially in lower socioeconomic areas, (actually pretty much everything is magnified on the downside in these schools. Usually Title 1 or just shy of it.)

Illustrative of just how bad all the 'new teacher influx' can be would be a story of Richard Daley Sr. under consent decree with busing/integration. He wasn't against it, but felt that moving students out of neighborhoods had a multitude of future problems. He decided that he'd move teachers, rather than students-filling the poorest schools with new teachers that 'looked like them,' something that the progressives were demanding. So, all new teachers in very well equipped updated schools. Problem was, these teachers that reflected the communities had education background from the same poor performing schools. They went to schools that gave them a lot of remedial support and the government was promising rewards for returning to their neighborhoods.

Any new teacher is going to have major management problems both with paper and student behaviors. Now add on the fact that their schools role models were not the greatest either. Most of their peers failed. While they were the 'winners' of their own area, they knew their education had to be supplemented/remedied in college, which was limited. There were many holes in their own education. They either quit or just kept going, with abysmal results.

An ideal school staff would follow a Bell Curve as much as possible. Few brand new and few very old, most in the middle.

It wasn't tenure that would do it anyways, that's mostly for 'job security' after 3-5 years of teaching. Most tenured teachers are gone at 20 or 25 years, only very dedicated teachers stay longer, the scale pretty much flattens out at 20.

[fj1200]

A question for the populists; What happens when the dog catches the car?

[Kathianne]

A question for the populists; What happens when the dog catches the car?

I kinda think it's happened...

[revelarts]

A question for the populists; What happens when the dog catches the car?

hmm, usually Nothing.
Which would be better than what happens... has been happening... when "viable" establishment Republicans and Democrats are voted into office.

[Kathianne]

hmm, usually Nothing.
Which would be better than what happens... has been happening... when "viable" establishment Republicans and Democrats are voted into office.
So there is 'viable' and 'populist' and never shall they cross. No wonder the democrats are able to do what they want.

[revelarts]

So there is 'viable' and 'populist' and never shall they cross. No wonder the democrats are able to do what they want.

I've never thought that so-called populist were not viable.
But that's often tossed up by those who don't like the so-called populist.

[fj1200]

hmm, usually Nothing.
Which would be better than what happens... has been happening... when "viable" establishment Republicans and Democrats are voted into office.


I've never thought that so-called populist were not viable.
But that's often tossed up by those who don't like the so-called populist.

Hmm, usually nothing because there's pretty much no there there but when they do... Andrew Jackson caught the car, vetoed the BUS charter, possibly led to the Panic of 1837. Protectionists caught the car in the 1920s and were successful in passing a tariff act in 1929 and well, you know. Populists caught the car in Argentina and the country is still suffering from it 100 years later. I'm not sure viable populists are a good thing.

I prefer viable 1994 conservatives.

[SassyLady]

Hmm, usually nothing because there's pretty much no there there but when they do... Andrew Jackson caught the car, vetoed the BUS charter, possibly led to the Panic of 1837. Protectionists caught the car in the 1920s and were successful in passing a tariff act in 1929 and well, you know. Populists caught the car in Argentina and the country is still suffering from it 100 years later. I'm not sure viable populists are a good thing.

I prefer viable 1994 conservatives.

Didn't they catch Marie Antoinette as well?

[revelarts]

Hmm, usually nothing because there's pretty much no there there but when they do... Andrew Jackson caught the car, vetoed the BUS charter, possibly led to the Panic of 1837. Protectionists caught the car in the 1920s and were successful in passing a tariff act in 1929 and well, you know. Populists caught the car in Argentina and the country is still suffering from it 100 years later. I'm not sure viable populists are a good thing.

I prefer viable 1994 conservatives.

So the last populist were in power in the 1830s then 1920's and crap the bed... "possibly" .

But the establishment Ds & Rs have never run the country into crap for the pass 150+ years?
And the 1994 Republicans ... did what exactly? balance the budget once with Clinton? Gave giant corporations more freedoms and less taxes? impeached Clinton over Monica Lewinsky?
those are the big wins? the kind of leadership we need now?

[Gunny]

hmm, usually Nothing.
Which would be better than what happens... has been happening... when "viable" establishment Republicans and Democrats are voted into office.You are misusing "viable" .

[fj1200]

Didn't they catch Marie Antoinette as well?

I hadn't pegged the French Revolution as populist in nature. But if you think eating the rich is automatically populist...


So the last populist were in power in the 1830s then 1920's and crap the bed... "possibly" .

But the establishment Ds & Rs have never run the country into crap for the pass 150+ years?
And the 1994 Republicans ... did what exactly? balance the budget once with Clinton? Gave giant corporations more freedoms and less taxes? impeached Clinton over Monica Lewinsky?
those are the big wins? the kind of leadership we need now?

Sorry, didn't realize you needed a complete history of populist failures from the beginning of time to current. I only allow that there is debate about the 2nd BUS but I'm pretty sure it led to it. Discuss it if you like. 1994 Republicans pretty much the peak of conservative leadership in recent history IMO but unfortunately there was more work to do. Discuss it if you like. I can't think of any populist "wins" in pretty much any time in history. Discuss it if you like.

Or if 28 more rhetorical questions is your speed.

[Kathianne]

I was going to start a new thread, but this fits here and just seems right for today:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/10/20/why-are-democrats-unified-and-republicans-in-chaos/


Why Are Democrats Unified and Republicans in Chaos?The Pelosi magic? Newt’s pugilistic legacy? Republicans not caring if government works? Or all of the above?
by Matthew Cooper
October 20, 2023
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on X (Opens in new window)


FILE - The speaker's dais is seen in the House of Representatives of the Capitol in Washington, Monday, Feb. 28, 2022. After House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was voted out of the job by a contingent of hard-right conservatives this week, House GOP leaders are now grappling to find a new speaker. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Taking control of the House chamber used to be fun. Your party installed its leadership after toiling in the minority. You celebrated. Ranking members became chairs, and their pet projects, like the Widget Protection Act and that new Museum of Trucking and Industry, got closer to passage. You got to run the “People’s House.”

Since January, the simple act of agreeing upon a set of leaders has completely flummoxed the Republican House Conference, as if they had walked into a final exam in calculus having skipped every class—but here, all they’re really being asked is to state their names. They are groping for answers, embarrassing themselves, and it only gets worse when they show their work.


The ham-handed efforts of Representative Jim Jordan’s allies—from Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity to the Ohioan’s minions in Congress—to pressure the holdouts resisting his speaker bid backfired and left the former wrestling coach tapping out (for now). Compromise efforts to keep Representative Patrick McHenry as temporary speaker—with enough enhanced power to keep Israel and Ukraine armed and the federal government open—died after a four-hour meeting of House Republicans because all four-hour meetings are doomed.


Across the aisle, the Democrats have responded with unity and precision, like an Olympic rhythmic gymnastics team. They vote for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries unanimously, while their Republican colleagues, who portray Democrats as wasteful and floundering, cannot simply agree on a leader.


Why? Why are Democrats unified at this moment and not the GOP? As I noted a few weeks ago, Democratic disarray used to be endemic and exploited by Republicans. See the 1968, 1972, and 1980 Democratic conventions. Democrats haven’t always done what they’re told. See the defection of House Democrats who voted for Reaganomics. For now, Democrats are unified. But why? Here are some reasons, none of which by itself explains it.


The Pelosi/Jeffries Magic. Are Democrats unified because they have deft, calm, organized leadership, while House GOP members are a bunch of drama queens? There’s no question that Pelosi’s terms as speaker displayed her deft rule—an open door but with a velvet fist. She swatted away challenges to her seat, rewarded allies, hustled money, and protected all of her members. Jeffries seems to have learned well from his Sensei.


But leadership at the top isn’t enough. Thought experiment: If you parachuted a Republican Pelosi into the speaker‘s chair, they could not housebreak this pack of Rottweilers. They’re rabid. So, it’s not just leadership. Maybe it’s the legacy?


Newt’s Kids. A few weeks back, I argued that Matt Gaetz is Newt Gingrich’s spawn. The former speaker of the House may detest Gaetz and has called for his ejection. Still, Gingrich’s fisticuffs and bombast provided the template for Gaetz and the cannibalistic culture in the House that led House Speaker John Boehner to quit and Paul Ryan to walk away from the speaker’s gavel at age 48 after just three years. Unlike Gaetz, Gingrich was smart enough and disciplined enough to build power and become speaker, which Gaetz will never be. (I think.) So, it may just be that the culture of the House is so poisonous that this is what happens, and we can blame Newt…but not entirely, since the House enjoyed relative calm in the aughts under the felonious Denny Hastert.


These Aren’t the Hastert Years. Hastert is the longest-serving Republican speaker in American history, from 1998 to 2007. (He pleaded guilty in 2016 to felony counts of hiding payments he made to young men he admitted to molesting when he was a wrestling coach.) The stability undergirding the Illinois representative’s tenure is due to a non-Trumpian Republican president and Republican nominee. The GOP got much of what it wanted from George W. Bush and Hastert, from tax cuts to ill-considered land wars in Asia. There was relative peace. Without a Republican president or a nominee from Planet Earth, GOP House members have been unmoored by the discipline of needing to pass a presidential agenda. Granted, Ryan gave up the gavel under Donald Trump’s watch. But Trump was an atomizing, not a unifying force, making his displeasure with Ryan well known because the Wisconsinite had the temerity to criticize him—for instance, scolding Trump for saying he couldn’t get a fair shake from a Mexican judge as being an example of “textbook racism” on Trump’s part. So, if you take the Newt legacy and the lack of a semi-normal GOP president, it’s a recipe for chaos. But there’s more.


GOP voters don’t want compromise because they don’t want much from government other than control of it to stop liberals from doing things they hate and fear—and they have been trained in this view by the conservative media ecosystem. Democrats want compromise because they see it as a way to get the activist government programs they want.He's got that wrong, the far right wants LOTS from government-they are not fiscal conservatives.


Democrats also band together because they have more moderates. That seems like a plausible idea. See this fascinating study showing Democrats have a more moderate base. Republican voters self-identify as conservative considerably more than Democratic voters self-identify as liberal. That makes it harder for the left wing of the Democratic Party to bully its way to victory.


But if you think about it, the more moderate base could just as quickly have caused debilitating ideological intra-party conflict since there are significant progressive elements, too. In the end, even Joe Manchin backed the scaled-back Build Back Better bill when it became the Inflation Reduction Act.


Maybe Democrats owe their unity to what might be called the “principle” principle. One of the most significant powers a minority faction of a party can wield is the argument that their positions are more principled than those of the leadership or the majority. Progressives had this kind of leverage against centrists/moderates on race and corporate power for some years. But the backlash against woke and defunding the police, plus the moderates having shifted quite strongly in favor of deficit spending and against free trade agreements and corporate concentration, has robbed the left of much of that rhetorical power. The far right still has that leverage against conventional mainstream Republicans. Republicans don’t believe in compromise as much as Democrats and independents. See this interesting poll write-up from the Washington Post’s Philip Bump.


The glue of being pro-government may be the biggest reason Democrats are unified, and Republicans aren’t. In the end, moderate Democrats can appeal to progressives to compromise to make government work, which is something both sides—and voters from both Democratic factions cave—crave. Moderate/mainstream Republicans have a hard time making that argument work for them because far-right lawmakers and base Republican voters don’t care so much. Passing the Widget Protection Act not only seems less fun than WWF-style wrestling, it also seems less important to voters who see compromise as appeasement which explains why Jordan hasn’t passed a bill he’s authored in almost 20 years in Congress and why the speaker’s chair is still empty.

[fj1200]

... Populists caught the car in Argentina and the country is still suffering from it 100 years later. ...

Milei trying to throw out the century long yoke of failure of populist thought. Doing pretty well so far. Huh, free markets... Whodathunk?

https://reason.com/podcast/2024/06/20/ian-vasquez-what-has-javier-milei-accomplished-in-argentina/

[fj1200]

Said by Erick Erickson today but paraphrased by me... "For awhile the populists had to put up with the conservatives while they ran the party but these days the conservatives have to put up with the populists while they run the party."

I'd never thought of Republican populists before 2015/16 so I'm not entirely sure what he meant when he said it but I think the statement is true as it relates to the current situation. He was also talking about the current home of conservative Republicans right now with Nikki Haley. That's probably true too.

[fj1200]

I say bad...

If bad then... evil? eventually? or does it die out before it gets to that point?

[Kathianne]

If bad then... evil? eventually? or does it die out before it gets to that point?

It seems to me that 'populist' movements tend to be influential, then die out. OTOH, the kernel that made them a movement at a point in time, tends to go on. History.com (https://www.history.com/topics/us-government-and-politics/populism-united-states-timeline) has a list of populist movements they've identified. Certainly not my favorite site, but it gives small summaries of each at site.


Table of ContentsThe Know Nothings
The Greenback Party
The Populist Party
William Jennings Bryan
Huey Long
Father Coughlin
George Wallace
Conservative Populism
The Tea Party
Occupy Wall Street
Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump

[fj1200]

It seems to me that 'populist' movements tend to be influential, then die out. OTOH, the kernel that made them a movement at a point in time, tends to go on. History.com (https://www.history.com/topics/us-government-and-politics/populism-united-states-timeline) has a list of populist movements they've identified. Certainly not my favorite site, but it gives small summaries of each at site.

They don't quite seem to get it. Conservative populism? Tea Party? A reference to Reagan's populism? Clearly we have different definitions. :eek:

The US certainly has not gone down any long rabbit holes thankfully but I was thinking internationally. Was hitler's rise any bit populist? Maybe. Was Argentina's century long failure populist? I would say so. Argentina didn't start a war and kill millions for the sake of killing but the populists did destroy a functioning economy and the hopes and dreams of millions of otherwise freely living citizens. The former is evil and the latter I would say is evil but on a different level.

[Kathianne]

They don't quite seem to get it. Conservative populism? Tea Party? A reference to Reagan's populism? Clearly we have different definitions. :eek:

The US certainly has not gone down any long rabbit holes thankfully but I was thinking internationally. Was hitler's rise any bit populist? Maybe. Was Argentina's century long failure populist? I would say so. Argentina didn't start a war and kill millions for the sake of killing but the populists did destroy a functioning economy and the hopes and dreams of millions of otherwise freely living citizens. The former is evil and the latter I would say is evil but on a different level.

History.com is, like most media in US, liberal in outlook. Interestingly though, I think they agree with you that populist movements are more bad than not. LOL! They just ignore any they may agree with.

I look at the Tea Party as in first iteration as a bottom up movement. Thus, populist imo-something I happened to agree with, until 'conservative' politicians got involved and basically co-opted.

Reagan? Not so much, as I think his rhetoric inspired a growth in conservatism, but was certainly more of a broad movement than Trump. It may have had more to do with the level of civic knowledge and understanding at that time, as opposed to the past 10 years or so?

[fj1200]

LOL! They just ignore any they may agree with.

True in so many things. There have been more than one, veiled and unveiled, "lessons" at church about trump's "right" authoritarianism but I expect no such warning about Harris' left authoritarianism.

[Kathianne]

True in so many things. There have been more than one, veiled and unveiled, "lessons" at church about trump's "right" authoritarianism but I expect no such warning about Harris' left authoritarianism.

One of my uncles was a priest, he had definite opinions on political matters, as I'm sure did his friends in the priesthood

To the best of my knowledge they did not appear in public, nor have I experienced political rhetoric in church, exception being abortion, and death penalty, that's it.

[fj1200]

One of my uncles was a priest, he had definite opinions on political matters, as I'm sure did his friends in the priesthood

To the best of my knowledge they did not appear in public, nor have I experienced political rhetoric in church, exception being abortion, and death penalty, that's it.

We've got almost all of them. Racial justice, LGBTQIAPDFASAP, eco this and that, death penalty, Christian Nationalism, trump, :eek: etc. Not that there aren't issues that the church should be vocal about but man, they go overboard big time on the port side. ;)

[Gunny]

One of my uncles was a priest, he had definite opinions on political matters, as I'm sure did his friends in the priesthood

To the best of my knowledge they did not appear in public, nor have I experienced political rhetoric in church, exception being abortion, and death penalty, that's it.

We didn't do politics at church either. Not even abortion/death penalty. We were there to worship and that's what the service was about. Even when we attended Protestant services at the base Chapel, it was about worship. Now, there was plenty of inter-church politics, but that was different. The Biddy Committee's and their lapdog hubbies:laugh:

[Kathianne]

We didn't do politics at church either. Not even abortion/death penalty. We were there to worship and that's what the service was about. Even when we attended Protestant services at the base Chapel, it was about worship. Now, there was plenty of inter-church politics, but that was different. The Biddy Committee's and their lapdog hubbies:laugh:

Oh, there certainly is 'politics' within the Church, without a doubt. Truth to tell, my uncle was a pretty big deal in the diocese, was head of school board and pastor at richest parish in diocese. OTOH, he didn't talk 'church politics' other than the nuns driving him crazy in schools. ;)
fj1200 didn't hear much on social justice homilies, though church definitely sponsored refugees and lots of contributions to food pantries and such. Church was involved, but not services for the masses. Those 'active' beyond Sundays, those were and are the social justice warriors. As I've repeatedly said, the schools are focused on social justice, but not in place of academics, which is currently what is happening in too many public schools. 'We're all God's children,' though they walk that line about sex outside of marriage or certainly regarding same sex, gender questioning, etc., I don't doubt they have some teachers that might think it's a great idea, but pretty sure there are lines...

[Gunny]

Oh, there certainly is 'politics' within the Church, without a doubt. Truth to tell, my uncle was a pretty big deal in the diocese, was head of school board and pastor at richest parish in diocese. OTOH, he didn't talk 'church politics' other than the nuns driving him crazy in schools. ;)
@fj1200 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=728) didn't hear much on social justice homilies, though church definitely sponsored refugees and lots of contributions to food pantries and such. Church was involved, but not services for the masses. Those 'active' beyond Sundays, those were and are the social justice warriors. As I've repeatedly said, the schools are focused on social justice, but not in place of academics, which is currently what is happening in too many public schools. 'We're all God's children,' though they walk that line about sex outside of marriage or certainly regarding same sex, gender questioning, etc., I don't doubt they have some teachers that might think it's a great idea, but pretty sure there are lines...

My grandfather was a Deacon, Superintendent of Sunday School, choir and gospel singers. Mom played piano and organ. Then there was my grandmother. She didn't go to church with us (apparently she lost her mind after a hysterectomy :laugh:). But she could quote you Bible and verse for any occasion, especially taking a switch to my butt.

There was no getting away for me. Sunday morning, evening, and Wednesday evening. Looking back, I didn't mind because I knew nothing else.

We did a lot of the do-gooder stuff locally, and usually for church members. Was a big church.

Ashley takes the grandkids every weekend. She's a Sunday School teacher and I'm sure one of the biddies. Matter of fact, youngest granddaughter has her first communion this month and they're making a big deal of it.

If I read you right, those you call SJW are who I am calling the Biddy Committee. Always in everyone's business and passing judgement if you aren't towing the line.

[Kathianne]

My grandfather was a Deacon, Superintendent of Sunday School, choir and gospel singers. Mom played piano and organ. Then there was my grandmother. She didn't go to church with us (apparently she lost her mind after a hysterectomy :laugh:). But she could quote you Bible and verse for any occasion, especially taking a switch to my butt.

There was no getting away for me. Sunday morning, evening, and Wednesday evening. Looking back, I didn't mind because I knew nothing else.

We did a lot of the do-gooder stuff locally, and usually for church members. Was a big church.

Ashley takes the grandkids every weekend. She's a Sunday School teacher and I'm sure one of the biddies. Matter of fact, youngest granddaughter has her first communion this month and they're making a big deal of it.

If I read you right, those you call SJW are who I am calling the Biddy Committee. Always in everyone's business and passing judgement if you aren't towing the line.

Catholic churches, at least those I'm familiar with, are not real big on being in everyone's business. There are the 'doers' who are good folks I suppose, likely very liberal and very self-righteous. They usually have mucho bucks and want the recognition in weekly bulletin. OTOH, there is no pressure to be one of those joiners, in fact they're pretty cliquish and have to be real money to get in if new. Pretty much it's 'everyone welcome' to mass on Sunday or during the week, but only the doers are there after hours as it were.

Very different than Protestant that I'm familiar with anyways.

[Gunny]

Catholic churches, at least those I'm familiar with, are not real big on being in everyone's business. There are the 'doers' who are good folks I suppose, likely very liberal and very self-righteous. They usually have mucho bucks and want the recognition in weekly bulletin. OTOH, there is no pressure to be one of those joiners, in fact they're pretty cliquish and have to be real money to get in if new. Pretty much it's 'everyone welcome' to mass on Sunday or during the week, but only the doers are there after hours as it were.

Very different than Protestant that I'm familiar with anyways.

That's about how it was in the Baptist church I went to. I caveat that because best I can tell, there are as many different Baptist churches as there are Christian denominations. Remember those haters calling themselves the Westboro Baptist church? Never had anything to say I ever learned in church.

Yes to the biddies that need to see there name in print, or even better, get a special thanks from the Pastor at the end of service. It justifies their existence:laugh: Most are good people meaning well. Just nosey as it gets :)

[revelarts]

As a young kid in the 60s my parents took us to Black Baptist Churches. There was some politics, mainly civil rights, equal justice & getting access to higher education. (Sometimes the fans people used in the summertime had pictures Jesus... or MLK or JFK on them) But for the pastors the politics was always a side show to the spirituality. Important but not front burner. The members themselves came across to me as a bit split, some had a lot of focus on spirituality and the bible. While others were more focused on politics, business & secular education, with a respect & a nod for the spiritual backdrop of christianity they felt generally backedup their political opinions. For some of those it came across to me as more of a veneer of religion.
As a college kid one of the church board members, a professional financial advisor who was helping me find ways to pay for college, reminded me to set aside money for hotels to take women to.
Not exactly "Godly" council.

But you know, thinking of this now does help me understand my own general POV a bit clearer.
I've never seen the U.S. govt or America as "the good guy" but always as an entity that has great power, responsibility & potential, but that it always needs to be pushed & reminded to live up too it. And called out when it doesn't.

[revelarts]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Ok based on many of the comments in this thread about the topic, I'd say this is a dangerous "populist" document.

Since there's no overriding or guiding political philosophy guiding it other than some generalities about justice, peace, defense & liberty (and a hint of religion!:eek:).
It's PEOPLE focused rather than ideologically based.

So, should it, by default, lead to communism?
Or be Edited to a more properly conservative version?

[Kathianne]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Ok based on many of the comments in this thread about the topic, I'd say this is a dangerous "populist" document.

Since there's no overriding or guiding political philosophy guiding it other than some generalities about justice, peace, defense & liberty (and a hint of religion!:eek:).
It's PEOPLE focused rather than ideologically based.

So, should it, by default, lead to communism?
Or be Edited to a more properly conservative version?

I think that Christianity if realized as advocated by Christ would be socialist. With that said, if Christianity was totally pervasive there would be no need for government, police, military, etc. We'd realize the perfection of 'heaven on earth.' I'm not holding my breath for that day.

A reminder that most here would recognize is that reading Marx/Engels for first time many good hearted young are certainly drawn to the idealism of communism, it's only in an equal study of past performance that the pitfall become apparent.

[revelarts]

I think that Christianity if realized as advocated by Christ would be socialist.

I can see how some might come by that idea with a quick read of the new testament but on closer inspection of the whole Bible It seems more likely that it'd be more libertarian with a Christian enclave within larger loose thin govts. Where the Christians take care of each other in a more socialistic way and help those non christians outside of that community as well.
ALL on a voluntary basis.
Cesar v God




With that said, if Christianity was totally pervasive there would be no need for government, police, military, etc. We'd realize the perfection of 'heaven on earth.' I'm not holding my breath for that day.
That's what Jesus promises when he returns, then it will be a Pure monarchy.
the scripture make clear that human nature NEEDS God & Govt until then. Neither Christians or non-christians will act perfectly until he returns.
Until then "God has ordained nations" ( govts) on earth. And the Bible to point folks toward moral behavior. (which, hopefully, is a byproduct of believing in God)



A reminder that most here would recognize is that reading Marx/Engels for first time many good hearted young are certainly drawn to the idealism of communism, it's only in an equal study of past performance that the pitfall become apparent.
It's a faux version of what a near perfect Christian community would look like.
When i was in high school and read it, as an agnostic teen, my crude reaction was "This sounds cool but PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT NICE."
Basically human nature is not that good.
There are moral leanings in people for sure, but not enough to make that work.

Always wondered how many people really could buy into it.
Since pure Communism is not really honest about how human beings really are.
It plays off the faulty idea that "people are more than basically good". If someone has that idea as a core belief, then Communism seems rational. Study of past performance & pitfalls will bring some folks into reality. But for others, it's just that communism simply wasn't done "right" or was co-oped.

[Gunny]

Always wondered how many people really could buy into it.
Since pure Communism is not really honest about how human beings really are.
It plays off the faulty idea that "people are more than basically good". If someone has that idea as a core belief, then Communism seems rational. Study of past performance & pitfalls will bring some folks into reality. But for others, it's just that communism simply wasn't done "right" or was co-oped.

You need to remember you said this. I will :) :poke:

[revelarts]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Ok based on many of the comments in this thread about the topic, I'd say this is a dangerous "populist" document.

Since there's no overriding or guiding political philosophy guiding it other than some generalities about justice, peace, defense & liberty (and a hint of religion!:eek:).
It's PEOPLE focused rather than ideologically based.

So, should it, by default, lead to communism?
Or be Edited to a more properly conservative version?

While I appreciate your response Kath, it doesn't directly apply to my comment & question... so bump


And FJ?

The problem with being a populist is that there really is no such thing as populism. There is no way to define "primacy of the people" and "anti-elite" other than a simplistic viewpoint. ...
...
Populism: Ever Leftward.


So the Constitution seems pretty "Anti-elite" and promotes the "primacy of the people".
simplistically no less.
Populist Document?
Ever leftward?
Need to be edited to a 1994 PEAK conservative version?

[revelarts]

Always wondered how many people really could buy into it.
Since pure Communism is not really honest about how human beings really are.
It plays off the faulty idea that "people are more than basically good". If someone has that idea as a core belief, then Communism seems rational. Study of past performance & pitfalls will bring some folks into reality. But for others, it's just that communism simply wasn't done "right" or was co-oped.

You need to remember you said this. I will :) :poke:

cool.

not sure where you want to go with that but the Declaration of Independence & Constitution are based on the idea that men can NOT be trusted with much power. That human nature is not, at base, "good". That people primarily move according to selfish desires, especially when power is put into people's hands. So they created a LIMITED govt with power spread out. And hopefully close enough to the people so they could look out for their own interest.
And they didn't want a standing army because that's a power base that too easily could lead to domestic tyranny. like they'd lived through.
And the power to go to war in the hands of congress so the "leaders" wouldn't be the sending their children into foreign wars... for lands & profits like the kings.

[Gunny]

cool.

not sure where you want to go with that but the Declaration of Independence & Constitution are based on the idea that men can NOT be trusted with much power. That human nature is not, at base, "good". That people primarily move according to selfish desires, especially when power is put into people's hands. So they created a LIMITED govt with power spread out. And hopefully close enough to the people so they could look out for their own interest.
And they didn't want a standing army because that's a power base that too easily could lead to domestic tyranny. like they'd lived through.
And the power to go to war in the hands of congress so the "leaders" wouldn't be the sending their children into foreign wars... for lands & profits like the kings.

I am not the one expecting too much of "men". Hope for the best and expect the worst. Idealism tempered by reality. The People trust corrupt men with power, and in fact, put them in the positions of power more often than not. The Constitution was written for men who think. Not sheep.

[fj1200]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Ok based on many of the comments in this thread about the topic, I'd say this is a dangerous "populist" document.

Since there's no overriding or guiding political philosophy guiding it other than some generalities about justice, peace, defense & liberty (and a hint of religion!:eek:).
It's PEOPLE focused rather than ideologically based.

So, should it, by default, lead to communism?
Or be Edited to a more properly conservative version?


And FJ?



So the Constitution seems pretty "Anti-elite" and promotes the "primacy of the people".
simplistically no less.
Populist Document?
Ever leftward?
Need to be edited to a 1994 PEAK conservative version?

Premise flawed. The Constitution is not populist. We didn't create a society out of a preamble. The Constitution limits government. Populism, as does socialism, relies on government action. "The Blessings of Liberty" is definitely not populist.

Be proud of your populism if that's what you like just don't proclaim that it has deep roots.

[revelarts]

Premise flawed. The Constitution is not populist. We didn't create a society out of a preamble. The Constitution limits government. Populism, as does socialism, relies on government action. "The Blessings of Liberty" is definitely not populist.

Be proud of your populism if that's what you like just don't proclaim that it has deep roots.
mmm, my Premise is sound.
Look, sorry that you don't like the way constitution puts it.
But please just be honest. it's a very LIBERAL move to try and dismiss parts of the constitution as irrelevant.

The preamble is the official frame for the U.S. Govt.. Not of "society".
It presents the official ROOT of govt's authority as "We the people".
And the purpose of it's creation. The prosperity, liberty etc of the people & their children.
Somehow without reference to any political ideology and in contrast to rule/control by an elite.

It's pretty sad that you have to try and dismiss portions of the Constitution as meaningless to try and clear it of what you consider dangerous populist ideas.

But sure, Socialism relies on govt action, yes it does.
As does 1994ish conservatism, with it's promotion of foreign wars, bank & other corporate bailouts, protection of the federal reserve, love of fat govt contracts, love of Alphabet agencies (waning a bit but still strong), love of big military, to name a few near sacred cows of 1994ish conservatism.

Look FJ you're not a hard core free market libertarian, you want the federal govt to be & do a LOT of things. Just differently and a bit less than socialist.
Seems you've decided to label every conservative, whose not a liberal, who doesn't agree with your vision of 1994ish of conservatism as "Populist".
But you want the govt to be & do a LOT More than the socalled populist, many things not even remotely found in the constitution, but are simply PART of the current Establishment status quo govt.
So please don't pretend it's some kind of ideologically pure conservatism. It's not. You seem to take most BIG Gvot for granted, as long as it's good for business. That's not really conservatism or free market libertarianism, it's closer to Corporatocracy, be proud of that.
At this point your conservatism is closer to RINOs, Establishment status quo govt policies & serial compromise on everything BUT issues that effect biz.

I'd rather strip the Federal govt of most of the things not mentioned in the constitution, and little by little, return the actions... if needed at all... to the state and local levels.
That's generally called being a constitutionalist.
Which, again, seems to point to the "the people" their liberty, rights & authority being the main focus.
Not the economy or big business.
If that's what YOU want to mis-define as populist, then sure I'll be proud of that when you & others misuse the term again.
no problem.

[fj1200]

mmm, my Premise is sound.
Look, sorry that you don't like the way constitution puts it.
But please just be honest. it's a very LIBERAL move to try and dismiss parts of the constitution as irrelevant.

The preamble is the official frame for the U.S. Govt.. Not of "society".
It presents the official ROOT of govt's authority as "We the people".
And the purpose of it's creation. The prosperity, liberty etc of the people & their children.
Somehow without reference to any political ideology and in contrast to rule/control by an elite.

It's pretty sad that you have to try and dismiss portions of the Constitution as meaningless to try and clear it of what you consider dangerous populist ideas.

But sure, Socialism relies on govt action, yes it does.
As does 1994ish conservatism, with it's promotion of foreign wars, bank & other corporate bailouts, protection of the federal reserve, love of fat govt contracts, love of Alphabet agencies (waning a bit but still strong), love of big military, to name a few near sacred cows of 1994ish conservatism.

Look FJ you're not a hard core free market libertarian, you want the federal govt to be & do a LOT of things. Just differently and a bit less than socialist.
Seems you've decided to label every conservative, whose not a liberal, who doesn't agree with your vision of 1994ish of conservatism as "Populist".
But you want the govt to be & do a LOT More than the socalled populist, many things not even remotely found in the constitution, but are simply PART of the current Establishment status quo govt.
So please don't pretend it's some kind of ideologically pure conservatism. It's not. You seem to take most BIG Gvot for granted, as long as it's good for business. That's not really conservatism or free market libertarianism, it's closer to Corporatocracy, be proud of that.

I'd rather strip the Federal govt of most of the things not mentioned in the constitution, and little by little, return the actions... if needed at all... to the state and local levels.
That's generally called being a constitutionalist.
Which, again, seems to point to the "the people" their liberty, rights & authority being the main focus.
Not the economy or big business.
If that's what YOU want to mis-define as populist, then sure I'll be proud of that when you & others misuse the term again.
no problem.

Sorry you typed all of that but you've completely jumped the shark on that one. If you want to be the Most Constitutional Poster then you are it. If you want your brand of populism to be of your making then nobody can stop you considering that there is no hard and fast definition of populism. Also if you want to misbelieve what I think and what I post... I also can't stop you. I'm sorry that you don't understand the Constitution and that SCOTUS decisions are not based on the preamble, that you apparently don't understand the meaning of 1994 in context, and that the current populists that you seem to have an affinity for are not friends to the Constitution. Discussions are great, your proclamations of me are not. :)

[revelarts]

Sorry you typed all of that but you've completely jumped the shark on that one. If you want to be the Most Constitutional Poster then you are it. If you want your brand of populism to be of your making then nobody can stop you considering that there is no hard and fast definition of populism. Also if you want to misbelieve what I think and what I post... I also can't stop you. I'm sorry that you don't understand the Constitution and that SCOTUS decisions are not based on the preamble, that you apparently don't understand the meaning of 1994 in context, and that the current populists that you seem to have an affinity for are not friends to the Constitution. Discussions are great, your proclamations of me are not. :)

You need took look at more supreme court cases. Some certainly do reference the preamble.
But if you read what i wrote properly I wasn't talking about court cases.

What i said was
"The preamble is the official frame for the U.S. Govt.. Not of "society".
It presents the official ROOT of govt's authority as "We the people".
And the purpose of it's creation. The prosperity, liberty etc of the people & their children.
Somehow without reference to any political ideology and in contrast to rule/control by an elite."

100% true. Even though you still want to minimize those facts.

Maybe because it makes you uncomfortable? i dont know.

I go on to point out that your 1994ish conservative POV wants MORE Federal govt... like the socialist.
In comparison with my constitutionalist (FJpopulistv2) POV that wants FAR LESS Federal gov't... like conservatives SAY they want... but often really don't.

[fj1200]

You need took look at more supreme court cases. Some certainly do reference the preamble.
But if you read what i wrote properly I wasn't talking about court cases.

What i said was
"The preamble is the official frame for the U.S. Govt.. Not of "society".
It presents the official ROOT of govt's authority as "We the people".
And the purpose of it's creation. The prosperity, liberty etc of the people & their children.
Somehow without reference to any political ideology and in contrast to rule/control by an elite."

100% true. Even though you still want to minimize those facts.

Maybe because it makes you uncomfortable? i dont know.

I go on to point out that your 1994ish conservative POV wants MORE Federal govt... like the socialist.
In comparison with my constitutionalist (FJpopulistv2) POV that wants FAR LESS Federal gov't... like conservatives SAY they want... but often really don't.

I know you weren't talking about court cases. Reference does not equal cite in re: SCOTUS decisions. Besides, I didn't minimize anything; Life, liberty, property is far more central to our founding and daily life than the preamble much though you want to overemphasize the preamble. And it seems you continue to misconstrue what I say about 1994. If you're going to bring up my earlier posts then you should quote them because your preamble version of my positions are not accurate.

[Gunny]

Question: IF we had to start over today, is the US Constitution relevant to today's society? Shouldn't they reflect each other? I keep trying, but I can come up with way more examples of why they do not, to include government that hides behind it yet does not reflect it.

Everything nowadays appears to be more "how to get around it" than support it. Like the movie Groundhog Day, it just plays over and over with no letup.

[fj1200]

Question: IF we had to start over today, is the US Constitution relevant to today's society? Shouldn't they reflect each other? I keep trying, but I can come up with way more examples of why they do not, to include government that hides behind it yet does not reflect it.

Everything nowadays appears to be more "how to get around it" than support it. Like the movie Groundhog Day, it just plays over and over with no letup.

I would say yes and it's still the best option out there. If it "should reflect society" then it becomes an irrelevant document and we would just be Europe/the EU/random parliamentary governmental form. To Rev's point it's not particularly respected by the government but it's also not particularly respected by a large percentage of the US population as it is and an even larger percentage doesn't respect at least parts of it.

[revelarts]

Question: IF we had to start over today, is the US Constitution relevant to today's society?
In my unbiased opinion.
Yes.
The concepts and forms are fairly timeless.
It assumes limited govt & maximum liberty.
Just because todays society likes & is used to big govt, doesn't mean the constitution is irrelevant to todays or many societies.



Shouldn't they reflect each other?

Depends on the society. Mafia society? Islamic society? country music society? lgbtxyz society, Academic society?
As we've talked about before, the U.S. & the laws were founded on a generally Christian worldview. A Christain view of the world and humanity.

As I've asked before, WHY do humans have more rights than animals? or why do humans have ANY rights? "everybody knows" is not an answer to base society or laws on when some today will argue otherwise..
Heck, You've told me we have NO Rights, unless we are ready to kill for them. BUt that's not really rights, thats just having my way.
But based on that POV, Right & laws are BS propaganda that just helps the weak, old & stupid by convincing the strong (or well armed or clever) to back off & be nice because it's the "right" thing to do... and we'll collectively stomp you if you don't.
With only the stomping part being connected to any reality.



I keep trying, but I can come up with way more examples of why they do not, to include government that hides behind it yet does not reflect it.

IMO they hide behind it and dont do it because most people really dont want to do it either, and it's not DEMANDED by the people who are aware of it.
When illegal spying was exposed and introduced by Bush, many on the right CHEERED. When Obama said he'd get rid of it, but NEVER did, the left said nothing, and the right said nothing. NOW everyone expects it rather than continuing to demand it end.
Like Roe V Wade, now only a few are serious about dealing with it until it's gone.

NO laws are inevitable. It's only those in the govt machines and media that try to make it appear that way.
People SAY they are like the founders but many seem ready to lay down every time a new unconstitutional layer is added.
While for the founders each unjust govt action was more fuel on the fire to get them all removed. Not looking them as an inevitable part of life under British rule.




Everything nowadays appears to be more "how to get around it" than support it. Like the movie Groundhog Day, it just plays over and over with no letup.
But we only want solid establishment candidates, so that's exactly what we'll keep getting.
Until we end up with wise UN aligned rules and "reasonable "gun laws (no guns).
So lets keep voting for "viable" candidates, who aren't "crazy", and don't say embarrassing things in the legislatures.
Who aren't "populist" who might happen to have a few things right. & Never vote for a 3rd party. And always obey every new unconstitutional law & order.
Because doing the same things over and over will create a different outcome one day I guess.

[Gunny]

Opinion noted.

It does not answer the question. Does current society/government reflect the ideas the US Constitution represents? I say no. Current society IMO is a mockery of what the Founders intended. I come up with no scenario where this ends well. Suddenly enlightened citizens and politicians doing the right things for the right reasons in the best interest of all? Not seeing it.

[SassyLady]

Opinion noted.

It does not answer the question. Does current society/government reflect the ideas the US Constitution represents? I say no. Current society IMO is a mockery of what the Founders intended. I come up with no scenario where this ends well. Suddenly enlightened citizens and politicians doing the right things for the right reasons in the best interest of all? Not seeing it.
Which shows just how far away from the founding documents we have strayed.