Populist

[vraiblonde]

When did that become a bad thing?

pop·u·list
ˈpäpyələst/
noun
noun: populist; plural noun: populists

1.
a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.

 

[Starman]

“Populism” has been generally seen as “bad” since ancient times. It’s nothing new to view it as a pejorative. See the Roman republic for more info.

But the reason it has negative connotations is because it generally relies on emotion over logic to vote or act the way one does.

See the election of Donald J Trump for some more recent history.

 

[vraiblonde]

“Populism” has been generally seen as “bad” since ancient times. It’s nothing new to view it as a pejorative. See the Roman republic for more info.

But the reason it has negative connotations is because it generally relies on emotion over logic to vote or act the way one does.

See the election of Donald J Trump for some more recent history.

Tell me what about this definition you think is bad:

a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.

Do you not believe the interests of ordinary people should be represented?

 

[Merlin99]

Tell me what about this definition you think is bad:

a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.

Do you not believe the interests of ordinary people should be represented?

populism is bad because it ousts the professional politicians.

 

[Starman]

Tell me what about this definition you think is bad:

a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.

Do you not believe the interests of ordinary people should be represented?

Moving the goal posts? No thanks. You have my answer.

 

[vraiblonde]

Moving the goal posts? No thanks. You have my answer.

So you do not believe that the interests of ordinary people should be represented, is that correct?

It's a simple question. You shouldn't have to phone a friend or use a lifeline.

 

[Gilligan]

So you do not believe that the interests of ordinary people should be represented, is that correct?

It's a simple question. You shouldn't have to phone a friend or use a lifeline.

He's a slippery little eel, ain't he?

 

[Starman]

So you do not believe that the interests of ordinary people should be represented, is that correct?

It's a simple question. You shouldn't have to phone a friend or use a lifeline.

Your question was, "When did that become a bad thing?" and that's been answered.

I don't even know what "ordinary people" means. But good luck with your quest for knowledge.

 

[Gilligan]

Your question was, "When did that become a bad thing?" and that's been answered.

I don't even know what "ordinary people" means. But good luck with your quest for knowledge.

Ahh..my favorite towering ego responds as expected.

 

[vraiblonde]

Your question was, "When did that become a bad thing?" and that's been answered.

I don't even know what "ordinary people" means. But good luck with your quest for knowledge.

Why did you answer if you weren't going to answer?

Anyone else? When did it become a bad thing - a thing to be sneered at - for a politician to represent the interests of ordinary people?

 

[Starman]

Obama was widely viewed as populist in 2007.

Did he represent the interests of “ordinary people” in your view?

 

[Gilligan]

Obama was widely viewed as populist in 2007.

?

 

[PeoplesElbow]

Obama was widely viewed as populist in 2007.

Did he represent the interests of “ordinary people” in your view?

Obama and Trump have something in common, neither would ever have stood a chance in hell of getting elected against anyone but Hillary. In 2008 no GOP candidate would have won no matter who it was so the election was the democratic primary.

 

[SamSpade]

Obama was widely viewed as populist in 2007.

On that I agree. Ditto Trump. I do have to say that Trump had a much wider set of issues on which he had a very clear
stance on, unlike Obama in 2008, who repeatedly had views on issues intended to straddle and not give a clear response.
Some of my lesser concerns are things like nuclear power plants and space exploration and technology issues -
and Obama was notorious in being a little hard to nail down UNLESS you looked closely at his comments.
For instance, he was all in for more nuke plants - BUT ONLY on the condition that an alternative to Yucca Mountain
for waste disposal was found.

What happened was more or less what I figured in 2008 - no movement on plants and Yucca gets shut down.
And try to - in 2008 - nail down exactly where he was on gay rights.

But I digress.

I get that on paper, populism sounds exactly what politicians SHOULD be - responsive to what people want.
In reality, historically they have appealed to what people want but their agenda really doesn't have that in mind,
and that IS how a lot of despots have achieved power. I think someone here made the reference to the Roman
Republic - I'm guessing they're referencing people like Gaius Marius, Sulla and ultimately - Caesar. Ambitious men who
through popular appeal more or less ended the Republic. I won't go into how populism has been destructive in
history - until the era of the United States, there's really been little existence of popular support being solely
the hand of the mob but rather a tool of the populist to direct the anger of the mob to their own advantage.

That said - there have been GOOD populist leaders. I'd place Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt as examples.
Perot would be another - I don't know how he would have turned out, but I voted for him and I would have
liked to have seen it.

 

[This_person]

Moving the goal posts? No thanks. You have my answer.

Actually, she posted the definition with the original question. You moved the goalposts when you provided an answer that was outside of the definition - giving what you believe populism means in terms of emotion vice the actual definition of populism that she posted.


You DID answer, but you changed the definition to do so.

 

[Starman]

Actually, she posted the definition with the original question. You moved the goalposts when you provided an answer that was outside of the definition - giving what you believe populism means in terms of emotion vice the actual definition of populism that she posted.


You DID answer, but you changed the definition to do so.

Nope, sorry. I answered the question directly, which was: "When did that become a bad thing?"

 

[This_person]

I get that on paper, populism sounds exactly what politicians SHOULD be - responsive to what people want.
In reality, historically they have appealed to what people want but their agenda really doesn't have that in mind,
and that IS how a lot of despots have achieved power. I think someone here made the reference to the Roman
Republic - I'm guessing they're referencing people like Gaius Marius, Sulla and ultimately - Caesar. Ambitious men who
through popular appeal more or less ended the Republic. I won't go into how populism has been destructive in
history - until the era of the United States, there's really been little existence of popular support being solely
the hand of the mob but rather a tool of the populist to direct the anger of the mob to their own advantage.

I think you're right in that bad people have directed anger to gain popular support by claiming "they, those, them people" are the things that are making "you, the good people" have worse lives and not living your dreams. Populists who offer hope for change from that, or to make your life great like it used to be are doing exactly that.

Vrai, I think populism is "bad" from the point of view of elitism, establishmentism. "The ordinary people" are too stupid and selfish and ignorant to understand what is actually good for them. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” -HRC "You didn't build that." -BHO People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference. -President Andrew Shepherd

Only the elite, only the establishment knows what is good for you. If you are a populist, you believe the ignorant masses know what is good for them, the rubes.

 

[This_person]

Nope, sorry. I answered the question directly, which was: "When did that become a bad thing?"

"Nope" what? Did she not post the definition with the question, explaining what "that" was which was a bad thing?

 

[transporter]

I think you're right in that bad people have directed anger to gain popular support by claiming "they, those, them people" are the things that are making "you, the good people" have worse lives and not living your dreams. Populists who offer hope for change from that, or to make your life great like it used to be are doing exactly that.

This is exactly how Trump got won the primary. While every other candidate offered a view of the US a country. Trump offered his views to only a very narrow slice of the overall country; in general undereducated, older white males. Disagree all you want, that was the crux of his message. The reasons for the problems of generally older white males are Mexicans, immigrants, and you should be particularly afraid of Muslims. Trumps ran a campaign targeted to a very low level audience.

Vrai, I think populism is "bad" from the point of view of elitism, establishmentism. "The ordinary people" are too stupid and selfish and ignorant to understand what is actually good for them. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” -HRC "You didn't build that." -BHO People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference. -President Andrew Shepherd

Oh for Christ's sake...you do realize that only proves the point. The problem with populist's is that they target their agenda to only one group. Trump couldn't win by suggesting he would help everyone. A populist only has a chance by pitting one group against others. A populist doesn't bring people together he divides them. This Person only proves that point with his idiotic elites vs non-elites BS.

Only the elite, only the establishment knows what is good for you. If you are a populist, you believe the ignorant masses know what is good for them, the rubes.

And that last line explains the end result of why populism fails under people like Trump. Trump can't govern for all. Yet that is what the President of the United States must do. GURPS and Gilligan are perfect examples of This Person's point...the ignorant masses, represented by GURPS and Gilligan, believe the tax cuts were designed for them. GURPS is all giddy because he can buy a steak instead of a hamburger. Yet he fails to understand the larger implications of the damage the tax cuts will do to the federal budget and our preparedness for the next recession.

When did populism become generally bad? When it became about pitting one class of people against another. In its current Trump iteration, populism is bad even for the people whose votes Trump targeted...for his policies (whatever they may be this morning) don't help them. Trump's incompetence is doing more harm than good. But none of you understand that...you got $80 extra dollars in your paychecks afterall!!!

 

[This_person]

This is exactly how Trump got won the primary. While every other candidate offered a view of the US a country. Trump offered his views to only a very narrow slice of the overall country; in general undereducated, older white males. Disagree all you want, that was the crux of his message. The reasons for the problems of generally older white males are Mexicans, immigrants, and you should be particularly afraid of Muslims. Trumps ran a campaign targeted to a very low level audience.

I think I made somewhat of that point - that's why I said, "Make your life great like it used to be" - it ran directly to make you think, "Make America Great Again." But, in your screed, you forgot to mention that is ALSO what got Obama popular support - "Hope and Change".

The under educated liberal rubes thought that he was going to Make America Great - for the first time. As Obama's own wife said, she had never been proud to be an American until her husband won. Those same rubes and #######s repeatedly said how America has never been great - ever.

Politicians have been using populist lines like this, picking and choosing which idiots they think will win them an election, and pandering to them for an awfully long time.

Trump's narrow slice of the country, as you called it, was a lot more than older white males. If you look at the demographics, Romney won white voters +20, Trump +21 (virtually unchanged). However, the split for black people was only an 80 point lead for Clinton as opposed to Obama winning them with a 91 point lead. Women, also, were not swayed by Clinton - she had a +12, Obama had a +13.

So, you can call it what you want, but it was not what you are describing despite what you call it.

Oh for Christ's sake...you do realize that only proves the point. The problem with populist's is that they target their agenda to only one group. Trump couldn't win by suggesting he would help everyone. A populist only has a chance by pitting one group against others. A populist doesn't bring people together he divides them. This Person only proves that point with his idiotic elites vs non-elites BS.

Interesting point, having nothing to do with what I was saying. I was explaining to Vrai why I think some people find the word "populist" "bad". I think the people who find it "bad" are hypocritical idiots, doing the same thing they are railing against.

And that last line explains the end result of why populism fails under people like Trump. Trump can't govern for all. Yet that is what the President of the United States must do. GURPS and Gilligan are perfect examples of This Person's point...the ignorant masses, represented by GURPS and Gilligan, believe the tax cuts were designed for them. GURPS is all giddy because he can buy a steak instead of a hamburger. Yet he fails to understand the larger implications of the damage the tax cuts will do to the federal budget and our preparedness for the next recession.

And, YOU are proving my point by claiming others can't understand what smart people would do for the country, and "the ignorant masses" just won't "understand the larger implication of the damage" someone else's policies will bring. YOU are why populism fails, because you think the masses are ignorant.

We can agree that we should balance the budget before offering tax cuts, because we should pay back what we borrowed instead of putting that bill on our children. But, calling people "ignorant masses" for wanting to keep their income is a pretty elitist, arrogant, uninformed, establishment-ist thing to do, and it damages the overall ability of the nation to come together.

When did populism become generally bad? When it became about pitting one class of people against another. In its current Trump iteration, populism is bad even for the people whose votes Trump targeted...for his policies (whatever they may be this morning) don't help them. Trump's incompetence is doing more harm than good. But none of you understand that...you got $80 extra dollars in your paychecks afterall!!!

More of the same - if we ignorant rubes would only listen to you elite, smart people and give up our rights and liberties to you, you would run our lives for us in ways that would make us happier - even if we are too stupid to know we're happier.

You make my point while mocking it, and that's pretty difficult to do. I applaud your total lack of self-awareness.