What is Populism

It depends on which group of people you talk to I suspect ww it could well be very different in areas and type of person, even race,religion etc.
Because people communicate more than in the past and because so much information is available ( including half truths, dodgy speculation and downright fibs) every man and his dog have a whinge or a demand.
I think that feeling true 'alienation' is rare, it's a word ( like populist and post-factual) that is bandied about.
It may also be part of the vast 'victim' mentality that seems to abound these days and sense of entitlement that any viewpoint must be granted respect.
But mainly I think that POGS and Eloethan 's posts covered populism, and although we may think there is a rise in populism, there probably isn't, these things go in phases, and there is nothing new under the sun.

Well it's been big enough to vote in the most powerful president in the world.

Populist politics "blackmailed" a conservative pm to hold a referendum.

Le Pen may become the French president so it is definitely a phenomenon worth giving some consideration.

There were only two candidates to choose from in the end (USA) and Clinton was deeply unpopular, if it had been anyone else but her, the Democrats would have won.
So Donald Trump got very lucky.
Cameron feared that UKIP would take away voters and had to please euro-sceptics in his own party, but yes of course, he announced there would be a referendum on Europe as a crowd pleaser to get votes.....so it was a populist move (he got more than he bargained for)
Marine Le Pen may or may not become President, the French are a conservative nation generally, but who knows?
The terrorist attacks in France may push people into voting for her if they think she will
Introduce more hard line measures.

So what are you saying rose

Trump had to get through all the primaries, and there were plenty of other candidates that could have been chosen. But my point and that of many others is that he has the characteristics of a populist politician. So does Le Pen so does Farage and Hoffer and Wilder.

populism is different in character from traditional pluralist political parties like the Conservative , Labour and Liberal parties.

Yes Trump was the populist choice, but considering Clinton was so unpopular it was a close outcome.
Farage may be considered populist, but he is not a Leader.
It may be something (populism) that is more talked about than has action.Corbyn is populist but nothing may come of it.

rose I don't think I've explained it very well. So we are talking at cross purposes really and about two different things. So apologies.

I was attracted to the original discussion because it was about what populism is broadly rather than discussing one particular politician. For me it has to be taken away from the individual to let us understand it. This is something that has occurred in many different places and, although the figures that attracts people can be all very different - even from totally different parts of the political spectrum - they are creating a following even when those voting for them know they are not telling the truth. Why is this happening in so many places? Why is there such a division in so many different cultures even to the extremes of Isis/daish.

....but what populism IS broadly is already set out by POGS and Eleothan in their posts. I don't think you can attribute the rise of populism to any one thing in particular.

No, my apologies if I have misunderstood what you were meaning ww ( my, aren't we polite?)

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

Actually djen I did say that further up thread.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.