What is Populism

Do we have "agendas"? Not suggesting that as people of "mature years" we are incapable of influencing or having opinions, but this is just a discussion . No?
Anyway, liked this.

Shame that people are suspecting 'agendas' in a thread which, I think, was meant to be just an exploration of the term 'populism' .

Corbyn and the people he surrounds himself with could be described as populist with the criteria that you give ww Momentum are now part and parcel of his entourage and are attracting a large number of anti-establishment and yet authoritarian types.
His rhetoric is very 'populist'.....so I think you could certainly include him as an example of leftist populism ( if you wanted to.)

Welcome back Ankers .....

I am well aware that popular is not at all the same as populist.

And why hadnt you given the SNP any thought? Answer. It doesnt suit your agenda.

varian interesting argument. I haven't given the SNP any thought.

I believe that the SNP has changed its stance over the years? From right to left. But I know very little about them to be honest . Must think about that one, as I don't want to give an off the cuff daft answer.

pogs ankers

You are both unsettled in this argument because it would appear that my argument on populism largely focuses on what you term right wing politicians.

First let me distinguish the difference between populism and popular.

If you look at my op I outlined 3 main characteristics that cN be found in all populist parties.

So anti-establishment
Nationalistic
Authoritarian (ankers I know you don't like the word but bear with)

We then went on to outline various others characteristics etc. Now we need examples of the sort of populist parties we are talking about and as we sit in Europe I pointed to populist parties we can find currently within our sphere of influence. You argu that this is bias in my argument so I will also point to left wing populist parties

Syria has shown some populist traits in talking about the "people" but it does not contain other if the characteristics such as nationalism or authoritarian. You can understand this when you realise that the movement is not centred on a leading figure.

Podemas - has been successful in attracting votes from both the right and left, and has grown to the position it holds today. However, one of the reasons it has been able to attract so many votes is because it is not Nationalistic in its behaviour.

Other left wing populist parties can be found in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina.

Next I want to distinguish between popular and populist.

So 3 main characteristics are needed to be a populist movement.

So clearly popularity is not the same. May has the popular (well I was going to say vote but that's not right) support, but she is not populist.
Blair had the popular vote but he is not a populist.
Cameron had the popular vote but he is not a populist.
They are not populist because they come from political traditions that do not solely contain these 3 characteristics. From time to time some of this rhetoric may emerge, but it generally considered a tad extreme and whilst they may run for a while they largely get dropped.

Hope that clears things a bit.

pogs I see what you are getting at now.
Personally I like the word populist.
whitewave, you are far more biased than I realised. I didnt spot it. Your post where you give your reasons for only quoting right-wingers when you speak of populism does not hold water.

I dont agree Elegran.
It is possible that he started off wanting good for the nation?

Varian
I agree with you totally about the SNP being a very dangerous authoritarian party, and anti democratic. Nicola Sturgeon Is IMO power crazed and the "named person" policy certainly has echoes of Nazism and Stalinism.

As a Scot, but not a Scottish nationalist, I think that in many respects the SNP is a populist movement.

The sense of grievance against "Westminster" fostered particularly amongst the less educated, has given rise to a bitter fanatisism epitomised by the hate filled outpourings of the so called cybernats. A lot of untrue statements and ludicrously optimistic economic predictions have been made and the SNP, although not right wing is undoubtedly authoritarian. There is now a single police force, the "named person" policy and the campaign to replace the BBC six o clock news by a Scotish version which could turn out to be a daily hour long party political broadcast.

This is a slippery slope which has to be resisted. Nicola Sturgeon is a charismatic politician, far more able than Trump or Farage. She knows how to get elected, no matter how badly her government performs.

I suspect that there is a discussion/debate to be had on 'nationalism' too. Though perhaps on a separate thread.

ankers "For that argument to hold water GracesGran, would mean that you think Farage, Trump etc want bad for the people and not good?" If by that you mean that Hitler wanted BAD for the people, can I point out that actually Hitler wanted what he thought was GOOD for the people of Germany?

His view of what was good and his ways of achieving that were mistaken and worse to the point of paranoia (parents and children spying on each other and denouncing those who didn't toe the line, annihilating those of unwanted race or belief or sexual orientation, not listening his advisors, invading other countries and occupying them, assigning people to savage work camps, and so on) but he did not do it all because he wanted bad for his fatherland.

pogs at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum - I have given the examples I have because they are directly or indirectly affecting the UK. So Farage, Trump, Le Pen and Wilders have been used as examples.

I am about to totter to bed so will reply to other stuff in the morning. I'm a lark and brain dead at this time of day.

That was to gg

what a lovely description!!

I think I mention Watt Tyler that was a populist movement didn't last long though

whitewave a familiar phenomenon
. To quote Theresa May, " Remind you of someone?"

WW
I posted:-

'I will take the liberty of just posting a few posts in the latter part of the thread, I could have picked 'any poster' so please 'don't think I am challenging certain posters views'."

I thought this thread was open to views from all of us and I have posted as I thought as a generalised comment. I did not post in a manner which aimed toward any singular poster and I am surprised you read my post as an affront to yourself.

It was a post that I thought would be read as widening the debate as to who, why and where the words are used and by whom.

I asked a question as to why certain politicians and parties are called populist given the definition and others are not. Why is one Nationalist Party different in the mind of some to another and that was the reason I mentioned The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cwmru. I do not call them populist because I dislike the words populist/populism.

My thought remains that one person will think this that and tuther political party are populist but to others on another political side of the divide would believe in a different choice of who they think of as populist.

I am not vying for a fight here but I do find that the belief 'populist/populism is a right wing domain is bewildering. Given the definition could it not be said that Labour/Co- operative/Unions are populist? , given there is agreement on the definition.

'Populism is a political style of action that mobilizes a large alienated element of population against a government seen as controlled by an out-of-touch closed elite that acts on behalf of its own interests'.

The underlying ideology of the Populists can be left, right, or middle. Its goal is to unite the uncorrupt and the unsophisticated (the 'little man') against the corrupt dominant elites (usually the orthodox politicians) and their camp followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals). It is guided by the belief that political and social goals are best achieved by the direct actions of the masses. Although it comes into being where mainstream political institutions fail to deliver, there is no identifiable economic or social set of conditions that give rise to it, and it is not confined to any particular social class.[1]'

I have just found an example quoted of left-wing populism actually known as the known as the 'Populist Party' or the Populists. It was ...

"an agrarian-populist political party in the United States and drew support from angry farmers in the West and South and operated on the left-wing of American politics."

It existed from 1891 to 1919. You have to wonder if calling yourself populist does you any favours.

Also and new phrase (apparently) - pluto-populism - coined for people such as Trump, the rich man casting himself as a man of the people.

The trouble is when the debate degenerates it gets absolutely nowhere but round and around. I am sure that most people get bored and turn off, which is such a shame as we've had some super contributions, and I for one have learned a lot.

I agree, Daphne...

Oh this style of "argument" is sounding more and more familiar <sigh>

For what it is worth, I think whitewave is right in her op with the 3 characteristics, other than as I have said, whether authoritarian is the exact word to use.

I think Sturgeon could be populist, but as she is replaceable I think, maybe not?
I dont really consider Corbyn as populist as his following is not large enough?

GG, I will use a different word other than "argue" in future with you.

pogs I have mentioned those because they are primarily in the news at the moment, but my argument is that any populist movement can be boiled down to particular characteristics.

I am not sure that I have indicated that nationalism is a "dirty word" merely a component of what I have described as populism.

If you consider that Sturgeon and Corbin are populist leaders, than I am not sure that you have understood the concepts as I have outlined them. I think if you are keen to find a left wing populist then you would probably be more fruitful in looking at South America. However, Daphnedil can help you better than me with that one.

I think that because you know I am not a supporter of either Farage Le Pen or Trump, you are making assumptions about my argument that simply doesn't stand up.

What I have attempted to do is to describe a certain political ideology/discourse that has grown during the past decade. In doing so I have looked at primary characteristics, but this is not new, this type of discourse has been going on for centuries and there are acres of publications describing it.

There will be acres more after Farages involvement in the Brexit vote and Trump vote. Le Pen and Wilders will be watched with interest. Academics and politicians are keen to describe the movement that is clearly making earthquakes in the European and American political world. To try to understand it and address it needs understanding and debate.