What is Populism

I have used authoritarian in a very specific way. I have used it to describe the way that a populist movement tends to focus on a particular charismatic figure, and that it is difficult for this movement to function without this leader. So look at Mandela, Castro, Hitler, Lenin, these are the giants, but then look at Trump and consider who could take his place and attract so many votes? Difficult isn't it? That's what I mean by an authoritarian figure. They tend to have all the movements ideas etc wrapped up in their personalities. I'm not explaining this very well I know but I hope you get the gist.

Your 7.10am post seems to just pull bits out of things while largely ignoring a lot of other things.

I see where you are coming from in your 7.18am post, but I dont think authoritarian is the right word. It doesnt fit . A new word is needed.

Farage I agree does seem irreplaceable , but if I remember correctly there were several other Republian nominees who were talking about some of the same things as Trump. So I dont think he is irreplaceable

ank I've looked at 7.10 and not quite sure what you mean?

Authoritarian is a word used by political scientists and sociologists to describe the phenomena. We can make our own word up if you like, but it will still describe the same thing if you see what I mean

I'm off to prepare breakfast and tidy up!!

but I still say the word authoritian isn't really right.

I will get back to the 7.10am post later today when I can.

x posts

What an interesting OP and discussion here, thanks whitewave and daphnedill for contributing such well informed comments. The conclusion I'd reached about populism is that it suggests there are simple answers to complex problems. If we hadn't had research and experts in my area of work, it would have been a disaster.

I can see why you object to the use of authoritarian, Ankers, although I can see why ww uses it.

If the word signifies despotic, dictatorial, totalitarian, tyrannical, repressive, etc., then it may not always fit today's populist phenomenum( although, from a different political perspective, it may fit perfectly).

Re other Republican leaders having similar ideas to Trump, none would have succeeded in gathering the momentum he did, if you look back. Why?

Would leader's personality-led movement be nearer the mark for you, Ankers, or demagoguery: an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side, a manipulative approach... ??

Whatever you choose, it is very clear that our interpretation of the populist movement(and it is a movement/wave) is influenced by our own experience,our political persuasion and our grasp of facts and history.

It is also clear historically that, without the presence of that leader, the wave flattens out and dies.

Off to Pilates!

www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/demagoguery

I think the reference to "sleazy politicians" is rather appropriate!

I think, in general, authoritarianism shows itself in two ways. In the first the leader tends to have a strong and authoritarian influence on the movement. This may also influence how the movement behaves. We have seen aggression and beatings rising within many of these movements. Donald Trumps reaction to those who disagree with him is certainly aggressive and, while other such leaders may decry publicly any such behaviour done in their name, we are all aware that the character of any organisation is set by those at the top.

It also becomes necessary in order for a populist leader to stay in power. Because of, as Iam has recognised, populist movements depend on simple answers to complex problems, they eventually loose momentum as either the simplistic does not prove to be true, the outcomes promised do not happen and/or the policies of the movement, should it gain power, begin to impact on sufficient numbers of its supporters to lose them votes. In populist movements they are very much in the image of the charismatic leader. Some populist movement rise and then wane simply because the leader is not sufficiently authoritarian to carry it forward. This could be said of Jeremy Corbyn's movement within the Labour Party although I think there are other things that set the movement led by him apart for what we have been defining as populist. Other populist leaders will see it as a necessary means to an end and it can then have hideous outcomes such as we have seen recently in Turkey.

One of the things I am aware of is that populist movements will use all the tools to hand, even those they decry in others. We have had some controversy about the term "left-behinds" and whether it is pejorative. One of the identifiers of leaders of such movements seems to be their thinness of skin and, in their leaders, this can lead to very little of speaking truth to power. Many studies have been done on those surrounding such leaders and how it has taken brave men (usually men in the past) to speak out and how they have often died for contradicting their leader.

However, the words which can cause such problems are equally used by these groups. I thought I could remember a link to this video being included on a thread on here well before the referendum or, as is claimed now, before the description was used to describe large numbers of those who had voted to leave. This is a talk given to UKIP members by political scientist Matthew Goodwin giving UKIP a good descriptor of those they should target to vote because of their underlying dissatisfaction.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3L-aBgNL1w

gg yes!!! That's a talk about what we are debating. Thanks for that I hadn't seen it.

It underpins what we have been saying doesn't it?

The lecturer recognises that it isn't a serious political party, but simply a symptom of the alienation that the left behinds feel.

daphnedill can we really disparage "American dictionaries" whilst discussing a subject which involves Trump? Why would we?

But new political parties have always been set up because a lot of people got fed with the status quo. Don't we have to judge populism on what the party in question stands for?

TBH, I gave up on this thread when my post of 18:46:50 was completely overlooked. #strop

I'm not sure what this thread sets out to achieve. (Not that it's not avery good thread, of course, and do carry on enjoying it )

bell I noticed your post!

bella

You asked what we were trying to achieve, well as you said in your post 18.46 we know what populism is, in the broad sense, but I have tried to look more in depth at it as an ideology. what I and others are also trying to establish is why it has become so popular in the past decade or so, and whether it can actually provide the answers if it gets into power.

Trump will be interesting, and we will se if he can stick to his populist rhetoric or be subsumed within the Republican Party in order to survive. My guess is the latter.

I am not sure these are political parties as we know them Bella. At this point and, I would suggest, always with political movements, they are very difficult to define. They seem to be not so much what they stand for - "make America great" doesn't actually tell you anything - but always what they are against. Anyone can say what they oppose but once in power you have to demonstrate how you believe things should be done and what you are trying to achieve. Eventually, and hopefully without harm being done, if they stay like this they just become protest groups.

Don't worry, bell, everyone ignored my post too!

In which I suggested that populism is nothing new.

With regard to whether or not it is a 'party' I don't think it is. It becomes the ethos of a party once people are united behind a leader or leaders who want to use it for change.

I think it is dangerous because it is simplistic and rarely offers anything positive. Nor does it offer any structure. It's all 'down with, down with' but not what is going to replace it. That is why populist revolutions go through a phase of anarchy and generally end up with an authoritarian dictator (or junta) stepping in to 'lead' the country out of chaos. That seems to be the message of history, anyway...

I think a large part of why populism has become popular in this country is either down to plain old xenophobia, or people simply wanting to preserve the tradional British way of life with the ethics that go with it. It is all primarily based on immigration. And it's probably the same in America too. Hence Trump's proposed wall.

Some people have good reasons for what they want, while others don't.

Actually we all get posts ignored I think but it doesn't mean anything really. YOU CAN ALWAYS SHOUT

.....and my post too, when I suggested ( before Maizie) that populism was nothing new.

Here is my reply then

Yes you are right populism isn't new. Looking right back in history as far as Watt Tyler, we can see populist politics operating right up to present day.

I can't possibly shout ww. I'm a good girl.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.