What is Populism

I always thought that political and sociological analysts jobs were to define the words they used, then test those definitions.

Thanks, daphne. I didn't recall the phrase as it did not go with stupid.
There must be a lot of people feeling like that, and they are not stupid. Confused, bitter at being forgotten about in the rush to embrace the brave new world we have now entered and perhaps wish we hadn't.

theconversation.com/new-globalism-a-counterculture-that-could-redraw-the-world-map-69390

"The existing geography of nationhood then, at least in terms of nation-state unions, is under pressure from both globalists and anti-globalists simultaneously. Right-wing populist movements in Europe are pushing for more countries to leave the EU, while the UK wrestles with internal disputes. It’s not just the familiar spectres of regional nationalism that threaten to dismantle the UK now either.

In London, city mayor Sadiq Khan wants a “London work permit” to sidestep the EU immigration restrictions that look to become an inevitable part of Brexit. There are even murmurings of a full London independence movement. In the US the notion of Californian independence (“Calexit”) has been gaining traction since the election of Donald Trump.

While right-wing populists seek to destroy the globalised world in pursuit of a traditional nationalism, these new independence movements seek to do the opposite: to liberate themselves from their historical identity in order to forge worldwide relationships."

Left behind is the term used to describe a certain group of voters by a number of political and sociological analysts, dj. It is not meant to be pejorative, but, for want of a better term, to describe people who feel that globalisation and the modern world in general has 'left them behind'

Who do you think you're kidding?
I suppose chav isn't meant to be perjorative either?

Ascribing any negative term to a group which they do not ascribe to themselves is by it's very nature perjorative. You might as well be calling them 'losers'! Same meaning.

Oh and 'political and sociological analysts' use it do they?
And they have a right to define what is offensive and what isn't!

@POGS It would appear that the word 'populism' was first used in 1892 to describe the same phenomenon as it does now. Therefore, it's not some faddy word invented by living people. It's been used in history books for decades.

So not true at all, Mair.

... and back to the OP. I can certainly see a strong thread of anti-establishment "outrage" in all the populist movements we have seen over the last year or so. Interestingly there have been quite a few discussions on radio/TV in the last week or so beginning to defend 'experts'. They have come under attack but rather like the 'it can't be worse than this' comments I referred to earlier, it can and would be worse without people who have an educated (as in knowledgeable) view of economics, etc. I don't think it has been the 'experts' who have said they were infallible but the politician who used the information they produced and, again, reporting in very simplistic fashion.

@Mair

Errmmm...I don't think you're grasping the full implications of the word.

'Left behinds' is the term used to describe a certain group of voters by a number of political and sociological analysts, dj. It is not meant to be pejorative, but, for want of a better term, to describe people who feel that globalisation and the modern world in general has 'left them behind'.

'Populist': a politician with charisma.

Blair Populist (in his heyday)
Harold Wilson Populist
Thatcher Populist
Corbyn Populist
Sturgeon Populist
Farage Populist

Can't recall anyone using the phrase 'left behinds', in RL or on GN.
And calling people stupid is not on either. Silly, maybe, but not stupid. Spent too many years teaching special needs to know that stupid is a word you do not use.

POGS said
It does however seem to me the words Populist/Populism are quickly becoming yet another flipping way of trying to disparage people who oppose your views rather like calling people Racist/Xenophobic. The word Populist is being bandied about willy nilly because it suits those who use it to not have to clarify or explain why they use the word, it has become a form of clap trap speak.

Oh so true! Just as the phrase 'left behinds' is being used to disparage those who they really want to call 'stupid'.

Funny how those who are apparently too stupid to understand what even 'Brexit' or 'Bremoaner' means though can get their heads round these rather nebulous concepts.

Newspapers have always been blatantly biased ever since literacy rates increased and newspapers became more common.

To be honest I think our general, run of the mill politicians, even those in leading positions, find it hard to lie in the way that we have seen in some cases recently. I think that is why they invent the phrases that get chimed out time after time. They may find it hard to lie directly but they are happy to hide behind these. I think we have seen, some times recently where it seemed like a modern re-run of telling the farmers they would get more for their crops and the people they would pay less for their food as in the 1930s.

Have we created this though by buying papers that are blatantly biased. Because they have become so powerful journalism seems to have stopped being a chance for a politician to say what he thinks and become the journalist putting a view (the opposite) and haranguing the interviewee.

Hmm. You've all been posting like mad since I began typing...

Do you think that populism is a modern phenomenon?

I'm thinking back in history to events like the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the rise of Nazi Germany. Although these don't necessarily conform exactly to the model dd sets out in her OP they are all characterised by the harnessing of discontent in a section of a population and driven by convincing and determined leaders. The leaders are are bound to end as authoritarian because they don't express the will of all the population and ultimately depend on force to retain dominance. (As, really, does any 'ruling elite', exemplified, perhaps, by the way the Miners' Strike was contained in the Thatcher era)

I think that in the UK there has always been the potential for populism to emerge. The post war consensus seems to me to have depended on the population being, on the whole, content that they were sharing more equally in the public 'good'. They may have grumbled about aspects of public policy but it is only when they feel badly alienated from 'society' and populist leaders emerge to focus that discontent, that anything radical happens.

Surely Eloethan politicians have done that since Adam was a lad.

Daphne I watched a couple of interviews of people in areas (mainly in the rust belt) who overwhelmingly voted Trump. When asked if they really thought he would bring jobs back to the area they obviously didn't but the felt that 'it couldn't be worse'. It is almost as if their history only reaches back to cover their own lifetime. It can, of course, be much worse. It may not be but there was such a sense of defeat, like the last throws of a dying animal that lashes out in its death throws.

I was thinking that, Eloethan, when I was thinking about the most obvious left-wing populist, Blair.

People don't always realise that they are lies?
They want honest politics and believe that is what they are voting for. Then they do not want to be seen as easily taken in, so make excuses for voting the way they did?

Gracesgran Thank you for saying something really important about populism that hadn't been mentioned - the way in which some politicians adjust what they say to suit a particular audience in order that they may appeal to voters right across the political spectrum. I do think this has become much more common - it is now very frustrating to watch Question Time because many of the politicians just hedge around questions.

Going back to your original analysis whitewave and looking at the authoritarian part. What will happen, do you think when those following these movements realise they don't always agree. Obviously, in the past, it has been to late when they have discovered that and they found they were under the authoritarian boot but I can't imagine the US putting up with it.

I must admit I don't understand why people vote for politicians, knowing they are telling blatant and outrageous lies. It really doesn't seem consistent with wanting more transparent and honest politics. Baffling!

I think that has shown up the cultural splits but isn't the cause Jen. We used to think that we divided along political lines but the spits into different groups crosses all that.

Apparently, the part of the world where populism has been most prevalent is South America, which also has a history of political instability.

I read an article somewhere recently that Trump wouldn't have won without social media, but I'm not so sure that's true of all forms of populism. It seems to happen when there is a high level of inequality and the establishment is perceived to be not listening to the 'people'. Ironically, I'm struggling to think of a populist victory which hasn't ended up with some form of dictatorship.

Le Pen has been clever in appealing to populist sentiment at both ends of the political spectrum. Mussolini did the same. Hitler appealed to diverse groups across the political spectrum, but always pandering to popular discontent.

Actually djen I did say that further up thread.

Do you think it's because of the rise of social media everywhere, Gracesgran?