How Democrats Can Learn Populism

[citizen k]

We seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.

That's not uncommon.

[Razgovory]

I'm against all forms of populism, they inevetably lead to facism, socialism or plain old stupidity. More Pericles less Alcibiades.

Pericles was a populist.  Alcibiades wasn't

We seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.

Clearly. Your understanding changes from post to post.

I'm against all forms of populism, they inevetably lead to facism, socialism or plain old stupidity. More Pericles less Alcibiades.

Then

Note I'm not saying populism leads to facism (and socialism and idiocy) I'm saying one of the directions populism can take is facism.

I'm assuming the word "inevetably"  Is suppose to mean "inevitably"

[Eddie Teach]

It's spelled "fascism", you dumb Islander. 

"Farism" 

[Tamas]

Meh, you know what, fuck old racist white people, we don't need them. Demographics are going to kill the GOP for at least a generation.

Edit: From what I can tell, the authors point is that the Democratic Party should take a page from the GOP playbook, start acting holier than thou, and embrace hating niggers, fags, spics, and people with college degrees. Um, no thanks?

I think so yes. Plus do more demos because it's rad.

[Admiral Yi]

I think Fireblade actually has the point.  Santorum's deal is not that he wants to lynch bankers, he is celebrating the working man.  Big difference.

[Tamas]

If you wish to embrace populism to any degree, you just don't understand the dangers of it.

The people who can only be mobilized by it should not be mobilized at all because they are dumb fucks who should have nothing to do in a poll booth to begin with.

[Razgovory]

We seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.

That's not uncommon.

I think that's one of the words that still doesn't have an agreed upon meaning on this board.

[CountDeMoney]

I think Fireblade actually has the point.  Santorum's deal is not that he wants to lynch bankers, he is celebrating the working man.  Big difference.

He's certainly not celebrating the working woman.

[Sheilbh]

I think Fireblade actually has the point.  Santorum's deal is not that he wants to lynch bankers, he is celebrating the working man.  Big difference.

Well I got that from the article, not FB:

Edit: From what I can tell, the authors point is that the Democratic Party should take a page from the GOP playbook, start acting holier than thou, and embrace hating niggers, fags, spics, and people with college degrees. Um, no thanks?

Populism, in the article, is suspicion of elites and the occasional burst to turn against them.  A part of why populist anger's been best expressed by wanting to lynch a government employee, not a banker is because of lefty condescension (expressed by FB) and the righty celebration.  I think it helps win 'swing populists' and the white working class who are still left-wing I imagine would be in greater voice if the left's elites didn't look down on them.

We seem to have differing understandings of the meaning of the word populist.

One was a politician who used his oratory and special relationship with the people to strengthen their sway over power, expel his enemies, support a hawkish foreign policy and fund large-scale public works policies.  The other was a highly educated aristocrat who, with the support of a foreign power, conspired to overthrow democracy and install a narrow oligarchy.

So what are you looking for, Huey Long?

FDR would do

[CountDeMoney]

Sheilbh, re: populism-- the political vortex over here is resistant to lashing out against Wall Street, rich folk, etc., as a form of populism because, unlike I suspect over in Europe, there's been 200+ years of celebrating the 1% here.  They're the American Dream.  They're the capitalists.  It's the government that needs to be feared and controlled, not them. 

Even though the 1% does more damage to our society than the bottom 10% ever could, that's not our political heritage. 

A single black mother with 5 kids is perceived to be much more dangerous to society than Mr. Brooks Brothers MBA on Wall Street.  Welfare moms, librul professors and unions, they're tangible threats.  Johnny Six-Pack sees them every day.  Mr. Brothers?  Not a chance. So which threat is more tangible?

Was watching an interview with Michael Douglas about Wall Street;  said it totally irked him when people for years would approach him admiringly, telling him that Gordon Gekko was their hero.  That's why he did the PSA for the FBI on securities fraud recently. 

Also, Americans lash out against intellectual elites because of our rich history of anti-intellectualism.  That hasn't changed going on two centuries now.

[Sheilbh]

But how did this change happen?  Because I'm not sure you're right that the government's always been the focus of populist anger, for example Bryan and both Roosevelts were populists who were about using the government.

Race is clearly a part of it but I don't think it's all of it.  I think the Kennedy Administration and its guardians are as much to blame.

Fair point on anti-intellectualism which I think is a clever deflecting defence against anti-elitism.

[Tamas]

But populism isn't about the intricate details of the difference between private oligarchs and rulers of the state (I suspect reality is the alliance of these two, I know for certain it is in eastern europe).

It is about stirring hate against those who have more / are different than you.

Also, I would speculate that leftist populism is so low-key there because it was The Enemy for 50 years.

[CountDeMoney]

But how did this change happen?  Because I'm not sure you're right that the government's always been the focus of populist anger, for example Bryan and both Roosevelts were populists who were about using the government.

Since the Depression.  Hell, the GOP is STILL trying to roll back FDR.  Civil Rights and 1964 merely cemented it.
Bryan was as much an evangelical as he was an economic populist, btw.

Race is clearly a part of it but I don't think it's all of it.  I think the Kennedy Administration and its guardians are as much to blame.

How so?  Race and economic inequality went hand-in-hand, and you couldn't address one without the other.

Fair point on anti-intellectualism which I think is a clever deflecting defence against anti-elitism.

Intellectuals are perceived as the elites here.  Rich pipple aren't;  hence our celebration of the Self-Made Man.

Hell, I'm glad Nixon, Ford and Rockefeller are dead.  Because today's GOP would kill them if they saw it. 

[Sheilbh]

But populism isn't about the intricate details of the difference between private oligarchs and rulers of the state (I suspect reality is the alliance of these two, I know for certain it is in eastern europe).

It is about stirring hate against those who have more / are different than you.

I think to an extent you're projecting.  Populism at its heart is anti-elitism, but you're right there's normally a suspicion that they're kind-of all in it together.  But the problem I have with your view is where you fit Maggie and Reagan for example?  I think they were populists but were about a lot more than stirring hate, because it's a style of politics rather than an ideology.

Also, I would speculate that leftist populism is so low-key there because it was The Enemy for 50 years.

Possibly a large part of it.

[Razgovory]

The wing of the party the despised Rockefeller has seemed to won out.  I mean, the John Birch Society cosponsored CPAC.  The biggest annual hoe-down of Conservatives.  And the JBS thought that Eisenhower was a communist agent.  If I recall Rockefeller figured big in their bizarre conspiracy theories.