What is Populism

Now your turn to answer properly.

The historical lynch mobs of the US generally consisted of white settlers/farmers hunting down and beating up or hanging someone (often black) who was rumoured to have committed some crime - (sleeping with a white woman was particularly abhorred). They didn't wait for a trial, they wanted instant retribution on someone against whom unexamined feelings of anger had been stirred up.

Populism can be used by simplistic activists to stir up feelings of resentment against a section of the population as a scapegoat for the troubles of another section. When that happens, the result is lynch mob mentality - mindless retaliation without any evidence or proof of the "crime". Krystalnacht, for instance? That is where it leads, if we are not alert to the dangers.

Very eloquent. Thank you, Elegran. You've saved me a job.

I googled the same as you, Ankers.

The results were mostly about lynch mobs, or lynch mobs marching. Nothing about marching that 'turned into' lynch mobs. And the common theme of the motivation for lynch mobs was populist, racism. So I don't think that answers me at all.

But it does kind of answer your question, which populism do you know of that turned into lynch mobs?, in that racism, a very populist trait, seems to have been the prime mover.

daphnedill Tue 17-Jan-17 19:25:09

"It seems we are living with the mentality of the lynch mobs, which is what populism is."

In that case why are Nicola Sturgeon and Corbyn classed as Populist Politicians?.

I keep coming back to trying to define who , what, where the words populist/populism are used. Most of the posts I consider repeatedly make it out to be a right wing issue only if I have followed this thread correctly.

I am not saying it is not an issue for far right /Nationalist parties, far from it but I find the 'collective' will to dismiss any reference to anybody, any group from the left of politics is somewhat disingenuous.

This comes about because of the perception by the individual as to what they consider populist/populism but it appears to me that , as I said earlier, the definitive answer is wider than simply harking on about the populist/populism of far right groups and seeing xenophobia/racism as the definitive answer.

Most examples of South American populism are left-wing. It isn't necessarily right-wing, but most successful European populists have been.

Sorry, am going out, so can't write any more.

PS. I don't see xenophobia as a definitve answer, but it is usually a characteristic of populism, which tends to be tribal and jingoistic.

Out now!

I would class Nicola Sturgeon as a populist. She has stirred feelings of grievance and found scapegoats. In her case it usually "Westminster" however many of her more fanatical supporters direct their attacks to the English, or people they call " Britnats" who voted NO in the 2014 referendum because they want to remain in the UK, Nationalism is a distortion of patriotism. This strategy has proced to be electorally successful, mainly because of the collapse of the Scottish Labour party coinciding with a drop in LibDem support because of the coalition. The SNP is also authoritarian. Some of their centralising control freakery causes serious concern.

I would not call Jeremy Corbyn a populist. He is very popular with a narrow group of left wingers, but unlikely ever to gain the level of support he would need to win an election.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/jeremy-corbyn-populist-democracy-m

labourlist.org/2017/01/from-nowhere-to-everywhere-corbyn-opts-for-populism-but-isnt-tempted-by-trump/

If the Guardian et al can refer to him using the terms populist/populism then I think it is OK to bow to their judgement.

I really can't understand this obsession with left/right in relation to this concept. As a concept it is totally neutral with regard to left/right politics. We have established some characteristics that can be seen in populist politics whether right or left - full stop. They may be right or left it is immaterial to the concept.

The term populism is being used to describe a particular phenomenon and has been brought to public awareness recently, particularly with Trumps election and what is happening in Europe. That is why I wanted to explore the concept. That is all no other agenda - zilch no need for any paranoia

POGS. I think you are right.
If you look back to the op, in whitewave's very first sentence, she herself is only concerning herself with the populist right.

Left/right is completely irrelevant to populism. That is typified by lazy cartoon-shorthand depictions of scapegoat groups by Hyde-Park-corner type orators from either end of the political divide and all levels of political activism.

Which rather makes a mockery of the first paragraph in her most recent post.

x post
My last post carries on from my post before.

Left/right is completely irrelevant to populism

Agreed.

WW mentions the worrying rise in rightist populism, but there has also been leftist populism for years. Many voters to the left of centre have been working-class and vulnerable to having their less affluent position exploited by exponents of the "blame the bloated plutocrat mill-owners for everything bad" school of politics.

So ankers did you read my last post?

Yes, so why write your op in the way that you did?

Unless you have changed your mind a lot since Fri 6 Jan? In which case, great.

By which I mean that by mentioning one aspect by name I don't notice that she confines her definition only to that aspect and not others.

By the way, asking me a question after I have asked you or someone else, instead of attempting to answer the one I asked, does not work as a concept. At all.
If someone doesnt want to answer, fine, no problem. But trying to not answer, by ask!

by asking me one instead, does not work on any level We can see!

By which I mean that by mentioning one aspect by name I don't notice that she confines her definition only to that aspect and not others.

Then why say it?
Why do it?

No, that doesnt wash.

Not that you can answer on her behalf. You dont know what she was thinking at the time.

But I appreciate your answer.

But then you do like to have every I dotted and every T crossed, Ankers.

If you look back to the op, in whitewave's very first sentence, she herself is only concerning herself with the populist right.

The first sentence in ww's post refers back to a thread about the rise of the populist right. This has led her to look at the issue of populism generally. The thread she referred to could just as easily been about the rise of the populist left. It is populism she was exploring, not its political manifestation on 'the right'. It's not an attack on 'left' or 'right', just an abstract discussion of the phenomenon. Why are you finding this so difficult to understand, Ankers?