Populism is a reactionary movement. It doesn’t just spring up out of nowhere - it comes to be specifically if and when there’s a relatively common perception among the people that the government no longer serves their interests.
The solution then is simple and straightforward, at least in principle - all it takes is for the government to institute the necessary reforms to win back the trust and support of the people.
The problem comes because all too many politicians don’t have the necessary empathy, integrity and/or determination to actually do that.
So they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Yup. I don’t even get what “populism” is when mentioned in media. Isn’t that-- democracy?
I’m a leftist but even I understand when people come into the embrace of the far-right, because the mainstream parties neglected the people’s everyday concerns.
People who are hungry, people who are out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
- Franklin Roosevelt
Yup. I don’t even get what “populism” is when mentioned in media. Isn’t that-- democracy?
Populism is demagogy, it’s repeating people’s complaints back to them, to amplify them and place yourself as an apparent leader, but without actually bringing any solution - and when it does, it’s immediately far right “beat everyone out”. Democracy is actually creating policy and voting on it, which by definition implies people disagreeing in that vote. Populism is rounding up everyone with the same mind, excluding everyone else (not voting on anything) and trying to crush opposition with numbers and no policy. It’s the antithesis to democracy.
Edit - it might depend on the region of the world, I don’t think I’ve seen a lot of left wingers be called populists. Originally it just means the opposition between the people and the elite, so that would match what you say, and apparently some left parties are trying to return to that definition for some reason, but it seems the Pope is taking the other version that has become much more common.
Neoliberal types definitely called Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren “populist”. Trying to equate it with rightwing demagoguery seems like it’s a deliberate poisoning of the term by people who are aligned with the very status quo power structure that populism attacks. In a choice between the status quo establishment and racist rightwing populism, of course the status quo is better, but the rightwing populism is a problem exactly because the establishment is so distrusted for their lack of responsiveness to people’s needs.
People are also using “populism” here to be a solely negative political movement associated with the right wing, but it’s just a matter of people thinking the people running society aren’t doing a good job for the majority. Not sure if that’s intentional or not, but it’s a value-neutral political expression. Anywhere you say “populism” you should generally be able to substitute “anti-establishmentism” and it’ll be roughly correct, but doing so in a lot of these comments doesn’t make sense. The establishment isn’t inherently good, though I can see why the head of the largest religious establishment in the world might consider challenges to it bad.
That doesn’t work if there’s not honest media.
Populism does not rely on facts, it does not offer solutions and works with people who prefer drama over reality.
Don’t think you can get any solution from these unreasonable statements some people make. It does not make more sense than a political joke.
The point isn’t whether it works or not - the point is why it comes to be in the first place - why and how people reach a point at which they embrace it.
And that’s when they come to see that their government is failing them - most often, when it’s serving its own interests and the interests of a wealthy few rather than the interests of the people at large.
And here’s a tip - you can’t combat it by deriding the people who embrace it. If anything, that just makes them double down on it, since, to them, that’s just further evidence that you’re an elitist piece of shit who doesn’t care about them or their needs, so they’re going to turn to these other people over here who (say they) do.
Again, there’s one and only one way to counter populism - governmental reform. The problem is that people see that the government isn’t doing enough to serve their needs. The solution is for the government to do more to serve their needs.
And here’s a tip - you can’t combat it by deriding the people who embrace it. If anything, that just makes them double down on it, since, to them, that’s just further evidence that you’re an elitist piece of shit who doesn’t care about them or their needs, so they’re going to turn to these other people over here who (say they) do.
Too often the ones who blame the working class for not understanding that (some) populist solutions don’t work, have been conditioned to support economic and/or political views that further the interests of the wealthy few, while themselves being a part of the working class, while not realizing it. For example the working person who advocates for centrist policies which keep distributing money from them to the top, because “the left’s” idea to tax the rich “doesn’t work.”
Again, there’s one and only one way to counter populism - governmental reform. The problem is that people see that the government isn’t doing enough to serve their needs. The solution is for the government to do more to serve their needs.
While this is true, I’m not sure if it’s possible or likely to come about through the electoral process in places where democracy has been captured by the upper class. That’s probably not the case in France, yet, but it very much is in the US. I think in such cases the process can only start at the labor level where labor takes a bigger chunk of the profits through labor action. Thus reducing the money flowing into democratic and regulatory capture. Thus making more money available to elect or “buy” politicians that represent that payer - labor. In other words - the majority.
And I agree on both counts.
Plenty things in economies are a matter of opinion, not facts. They’re then subject to political choices. For example whether to tax the top more or to increase the retirement age. Too often however matters of opinion similar to this are presented as facts by one side in order to invalidate the other possibilities as non-factual.
Seems to me the rise in populism in western countries are the majority being treated the same as minorities.
What would a king chosen by his advisory council know about democracy?
It’s a church, not a nation. What about your boss not being chosen democratically?
The Holy See isn’t a nation? Are you sure about that? It has sovereignty. What else would it be?
Says world leader who was undemocratically elected
And was allied with the most populist government in his country before he got there
Well, I sure didn’t vote for him.
You don’t vote for Pope
Well, how do you become Pope then?
He is elected by a papal enclave, which is a gathering of the College of Cardinals.
Listen. Strange men in tall hats is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical hat ceremony.
You mean hes not elected by some moistened bint throwing a pointy hat at him?
God
Populism is a feature of democracy. It’s just like in life, easy answers, like fast food for example, are always easy to suggest, but in the long term might not be the best. But if you can show your voter base, eating these disgusting vegetables in the long term is going to do everyone good, slight inconvenience, major benefit. So there will always be the power hungry populist that will give easy and popular answers to hard questions, it is the voters duty to determine who has their long term interests at heart and who is able to bribe you with your shortsighted desires to get into power.
On the other hand, you do need to fuck up education big time, and suck hope out of the people with policies that only benefit the rich for decades for it to be appealing.
In your analogy, people today have no vegetables on the menu, just subsistence amounts of bread and water versus hamberders and cheap beer. And we get less and less bread every year.
People would like veggies, a lot of them, especially kids, but the veggie peddlers are beaten up and driven away by the bread and water people, since literal poison is easier to compete with.
In a two party system, populist movements grow when the opposition party is failing (or is perceived as failing) people. Alternatively, both parties can fail the people before one becomes populist.
The two party system has failed Americans. But now that the republicans have created a populist movement, the failure of democrats to properly serve many people causes them to be pulled by populism. It doesn’t help that the culture war lets absolue horseshit issues fly by without actual basis in reality, since that fuels the fire without actually having to do the hard discussions about policy.
The MAGA movement is a “third way” that formed because the paths forward shown by both democrats and republicans seemed to lead to nowhere for many people.
I don’t think this is a cancer, I think this is a horrendous feature of the design of a representative democracy under capitalism (at least, in the American sense)
Capitalism will crush people while trying to wring every bit of profit out of them, and in a capitalist democracy, the state supports capitalism.
Representative democracy leads to unaccountable representatives. They still need to get re-elected if they want to (or they could just serve capital and dip), but with all the dogmatism caused by political parties, the hierarchy of the parties protecting the politician, and the benefits of having corporate sugar daddies, especially media corporations, they can get away with enriching themselves at the expense of Americans, while still having decent odds at reelection.
Further, people in power, for whatever reason gave this tendency to build their power, usually at the expense of those without it. The state gives itself new powers and new toys at the expense of everyone else. Fear of terrorism gave us some of the most draconian laws on the books, such as the patriot act, which has not been repealed whenever there has been an opportunity to. The police got afraid of the people, and bought themselves guns, counterinsurgency training and tools from a foreign apartheid state, armored cars, and raises. The supreme court went from writing itself into existence to giving the president near legal immunity, rolling out the red carpet for the authoritarian state to become an even more authoritarian state.
When you mix these tendencies together, its no wonder why this state has failed. And while it hasn’t failed everyone, the nature of capitalism leads to a pretty large exploited class ripe for exploitation. And this populist movement is ready to take advantage of that, between those primed by culture war drivel, economic suffering, or seeing their demographic and/or class lose power in some way.
This populism isn’t a cancer on an ailing democracy.
It is a symptom of a failing democracy, unable to sustain itself from the structure of itself.
I agree with your overall points, but populism is not exclusive to two-party system. Much of Europe, with many countries having a multiparty, proportional representative parliaments, are experiencing populism as well. We see the rise of far-right AfD in Germany, National Rally in France and Sweden Democrats to name a few.
That’s true. I was just trying to explain my view of the US system.
Broadly speaking, do think that if a country has two dominant neoliberal parties, like the US, this will inevitably happen.
A huge chunk of the most virulent MAGA are successful. Whatever their reasons, “The Democrats failed them” is only something they’ve been told, not something that really happened, because they were never failed.
You don’t need to be downtrodden to feel like a party is failing you. Considering life is getting harder for so many lower and middle class people, a lot of people are feeling worse than they did 10-15 years ago. This is where people have been failed by both parties.
I mentioned that there are people who are feeling like they are losing their position in society. Some people are simply bigoted and are upset at seeing minorities get visibility, some are upset that christianity is less prevalent among Americans. I don’t think either of these reasons is valid, though, fuck the old hierarchies.
The issues faced by Americans in the rural south are completely different than the ones faced by Americans on the east or west coasts. We basically live in separate worlds. Republicans failed them, but to think the democrats didn’t is silly. For example, a lot of people live in rural areas, where the police would take an hour to get there if someone was being attacked by someone or some animal. Guns are a bit more necessary in places like this than they are in a big city.
Granted, I think the media’s lies is the biggest cause of the populism. And holy shit does right wing media spew lies at an incredible rate.
If he didn’t name them directly, they won’t understand he’s talking about them. There’s a lack of intellect and critical thinking there. That’s why it works in the first place.
He’s the Pope, he’s literally the head of the world’s largest group of people regularly practicing the lack of critical thinking.
Is the cancer called ‘any and all religions’?
We could abolish religion and still have harmful populism.
Worth a shot!
Religion is a human idea.
Human ideas are the problem. You can have ignorant hatred without religion.
It would go a long way to fixing the problem.
Religion is a human idea.
Human ideas are the problem. You can have ignorant hatred without religion.
Removed by mod
Pope’s Latino bro. Any other reductive comments?
Removed by mod
Yeah, it’s called the Democrats and Republicans
I’m pretty certain he wasn’t just talking about the U.S.
Especially since the EP elections just happened, and he was speaking in Italy.
