What is Populism

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.

'Populist': a politician with charisma.

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

'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'.

@Mair

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

... 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.

@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.

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!

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."

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

"It's been used in history books for decades."

Yeh we know that Miss!

But meanings and intentions change and political abstractions have flexible meaning and fuzzy edges.



Definition of populist Mirriam Webster
1
: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies

2
: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people

My reading and book collection go beyond American dictionaries.

Try it! Reading real books is really interesting.

Thank you, whitewave, for starting this thread. It has the potential to be one of the most thought-provoking for a long time.

@dj

As far as I know, the first use of 'left behind' was by Robert Ford and Matthew Goodwin in "Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain".

I read the book a couple of years ago and have seen the term used by others since then. They based their findings on an enormous amount of data. Of course, the referendum hadn't been announced when they wrote the book, but their predictions turned out to be correct. Somebody should have bought Cameron a copy!

I agree with Mair's post regarding Miriam Webster's definition of a populist.
What is so wrong with a political party believing in the rights, wisdom and virtues of the common people?
Americans voted for Donald Trump because he is NOT a politician. We voted for him because the "politicians" have been taking America down the wrong path and after 8 years of Barack Obama, (the worst President America has EVER had), another 4 years of Hillary Clinton would have been the last straw.

Americans voted for Donald Trump because he is NOT a politician.
(And if you read the rest of montana gal's post, apparently proud to have done so. )
Sadly, the rest of the world will lave to live with the consequences of this perverse logic.
Remind me, somebody, to book my next dental treatment with my hairdresser, or get my dentist to fix my loo which won't flush or indeed ask how much the plumber charges for highlights.

mair you are not understanding either the concept of the term or the thrust of my argument.

For some reason you choose to use language that is both confrontational and unpleasant, attempting to accuse me of the very same thing, which is clear to me and I would like to think another of others on this thread, not the case. I make it obvious why I have chosen particular lines of thought and phrases, -largely because they are being used by the academic and political world. Generally this allows everyone to know what we are talking about.

I am sorry that your debating abilities appear to amount to little more than confrontation and unthought through argument.

When experts are told their opinions do not matter, it's natural that populism will win

No,it is not that their opinions do not matter, it is that they get proved to be wrong over and over again.

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!

The voting system in the UK means we choose our representatives from a limited list and then are supposed to trust them to do their best to represent their constituents

Good point. Very good point.
But your second post is actually answered by your other post.

I mean, the first post is the answer to your second post.

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.

But the poor in America are actually very poor.
You cant blame them for having hope in Trump.

Why does populism seem to cross class and traditional voting patterns?

Populism tends to be a "thinly centred" ideology. That is it fails to provide all the answers to major social and political questions. It cannot be comparable to other major political belief systems such as socialism on the left and liberalism (this includes the conservatism) on the right. It will in my view always ultimately fail, because of this "thinness" But it is this very thinness that attracts a cross class voting pattern.

Populism ultimately considers society to be separated into homogenous and antagonistic groups - " the pure people" versus "the corrupt elite". Or the indigenous nationals versus the immigrant. It is a simple ideology with very few layers and it is this simplicity that allows instant attraction to the voter.

So if you consider the rhetoric of a would-be populist leader, they tend to claim to speak for the majority if the "common people" and in turn identifying a group of outsiders, such as the elite or immigrants or groups of another faith. It is a political expression that is employed selectively and strategically. Because of its simplicity populist politicians can shape and reshape their rhetoric without any hindrance of a complicated and overriding ideology. This is why traditional political parties seem weak or appear to have few answers at the present time because of their inability to shape shift. But they will prevail in the end because of the underlying complete emptiness of the populist ideology.

On first glance I didnt agree with hardly any of your post. Then perhaps some of it.

Populism isnt an ideology I dont think. Why does it have to be an ideology?

It is really quite simple. A lot of people have woken up to the fact that politicans across most parties in a lot of
countries, eg the Uk, america etc
a.dont know what they are talking about.
b. worse still are hypocrites
c. are more greedy than they should be which
d. makes them out of touch
e. perhaps worst of all, they cannot, no matter who often or in what way it is explained to them, get the idea of immigration. Or worse still, if they do, they throw words about[some gransnet posters are as bad at this bit as the "corrupt elite"].

yes "corrupt elite", but the people are not saying they are pure. Where do they say that?

Populism will "fail" just as soon as the politicians get to grips with the above.
If gransnet is anything to go by, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

This is why traditional political parties seem weak or appear to have few answers at the present time because of their inability to shape shift. But they will prevail in the end because of the underlying complete emptiness of the populist ideology.

There are a lot more than one way in which things can pan out.

definition of authoritarian
favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom:

I have been struggling with the idea of saying that the likes of Trump and Farage are this.
Surely it is the opposite. Farage is not in a position of authority at all. And with Trump we shall see.
They want to break some of the established authority, not impost more of it.
That gives people more personal freedom, not less.

ankers

Yes you can see populism simply as a political discourse, but I have given it a bit more respectability by considering it as an ideology. The have been so many instances of populist uprisings both in recent times and in history to allow it to be seen as an ideology I think, albeit incomplete.

I have used various words like corrupt, elite, pure,immigrants, etc as these words have all been employed by populism in their arguments.

Yes of course they will fail if the voter feels that the traditional politician has more to say, which in my argument will always ultimately be the case because populism has no answer to the majority of the social, economic and political questions of the day.