How Democrats Can Learn Populism

[grumbler]

But in my book, real "populism" is about  catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.

FWIW, I think that this is a good, short definition for what populism generally means in the real world, vague dictionary definitions that describe pretty much every modern political party notwithstanding.

[Sheilbh]

Please.  He has just as much passion, drama, and rage as Santorum.  Which is not that much.  The difference between the two (apart from the type of populist message they're peddling) is that Santorum's message is getting traction with a subset of the population when he wasn't supposed to, and Obama's message is not getting traction when he was supposed to.

Have you any examples?  I watched Osawatomie, which I think is Obama's strongest inequality statement.  I've also watched Santorum's snob spiel (and others).  I'd argue they are very different in tone and style.

And I repeat: do you think a policy of this sort would harness populist rage in the way you would like?

No.  But, again, populism is a style and a manner of politics.  You harness populist rage to deliver policies not the other way round.  You wanted specific ideas and I gave a few that's all.

[Barrister]

I live in a province that has been ruled by a single party since 1971 (and  before that with an ideologically very similar party since 1935).  What this means in effect is very technocratic government.  I tend to feel we could use a dose more populism here.

Wasn't Klein about as populist as they get?

Initially, yes.

But between later Klein, Strom, and now Redford, this government doesn't have a populist bone in its body.

[Razgovory]

But in my book, real "populism" is about  catering to the current short-term and basic "interests" and impulses of the people, for the short term goal of gaining or keeping power.

FWIW, I think that this is a good, short definition for what populism generally means in the real world, vague dictionary definitions that describe pretty much every modern political party notwithstanding.

Well, now we know it's wrong.

[Ideologue]

Springsteen/Weinberg 2016.

[Neil]

Stelmach and Redford are essentially non-entities with no real mandate though.  Stelmach in particular was just buffeted around by the internal politics of the PC Party like a paper boat in a hurricane.

[crazy canuck]

Yet that would be the end of politics.

And what a shame that would be.

[Barrister]

Yet that would be the end of politics.

And what a shame that would be.

How the fuck did I confuse Strom - the last SoCred premier, with Stelmach?

I can only admit that I was away for awhile... 

[crazy canuck]

Yet that would be the end of politics.

And what a shame that would be.

How the fuck did I confuse Strom - the last SoCred premier, with Stelmach?

I can only admit that I was away for awhile... 

I knew you were off your meds when you criticised stable government...

[Barrister]

I knew you were off your meds when you criticised stable government...

You forget that my political philosophy crystallized in 1992 or thereabouts with Preston Manning and the Reform Party. 

[Oexmelin]

Yet that would be the end of politics.

And what a shame that would be.

[Tamas]

Yet that would be the end of politics.

And what a shame that would be.

[Duque de Bragança]

The communism we know was never really populist at all. The main thrust came from the upper middle class and educated elites in places where that was an extremely small portion of the population.

Yeah.  Even genuinely popular Communist Parties never went in for populism. I mean the French leadership was unbelievably uncharismatic apparatchiks.  The PCI leaders (until Berlinguer ) were similarly uncharismatic.  Togliatti toed the Soviet line and then threw in a veneer of Gramsci for the intellectuals.

Georges Marchais is spinning in his grave !

[crazy canuck]

Yet that would be the end of politics.

And what a shame that would be.

I would not cry over the end of politics as we currently know it - a largely disengaged electorate who's politicians have to pander to the sound bite in a 24 hour news cycle where ironically no in depth time is spent on anything.  Neither would I cry over the end of populist politics, particularly here in BC, where we swing from one extreme to the other. 

But more than that our politics are quite different.  If I am right you wish to see fairly quick fundamental change in our system and particularly your Province (Country) while I am a Conservative (in the political theory sense) in that I am suspicious of polticians who have the quick fix.

Alberta is an excellent case study of the kind of government I would prefer to the craziness in BC's system.  It has been said by many observers that each successful leader in Alberta has to re-invent the party to address the current needs of the province and to address the concerns of the electorate.  Under that system of government you dont get what we get in BC  with rookie cabinet ministers and senior beaurocrats  (brought in by those rookie ministers) screwing everything up for a couple years to make their ideological point - which happens on both the right and left here.  Rather you get good stable government that is remains flexible by having a new leader from time to time rather than the leader holding on to power to long and requiring the electorate to boot them out.

The Americans have this sort of system institutionalized so they dont have to rely on the good judgment of a party leader to know when it is time to go.  That is, imo, one of the great strengths of their system of government.

[Jacob]

Sounds like you're ready for the Chinese model minus the corruption.