What is Populism

Populism in action. What has nepotism got to do with the common people? Why isn't he trying to get the best team, in order to make the changes he has promised? He is acting like dictators throughout the world,Remember Houssain? (Is that spelt correctly)

Americans are complaining, Ankers. Kushner has a team of attorneys on standby to defend him against a federal anti-nepotism law.

Yes. Irony!
Jared Kushner has yet to be approved by Congress( please see my other comment). DT only feels comfortable surrounded by his offspring and allied others. This is the way of insecure people and past demigogues( and demigods) in history and mythology. Full gods are more certain of themselves!

Isn't Rinoushka just being ironic in her use of 'demigod'?

Rinouchka, have you got the wrong spelling and perhaps meaning of demagogue too?

I dont know what Jared Kushner is doing there.

Do the americans have form for doing it this way? No idea. They dont seem to be complaining much because they are used to it?

The people Trump has surrounded himself with will all support this demigod's notions, tempered to make them more digestible at first.
The only ray of hope is that he will need 51 votes in Congress to pass every notion and there are 2 remaining Republican senators who cannot be bought or bullied(yet) so, despite the 52-strong Republican presence, the Donald may just meet an obstacle or 2.

Admire Meryl Streep even more after Globes!
Saw free preview of La La Land Sunday. Fun, uplifting, compassionate, happy & sad. All about having dreams, good intentions and sticking to them despite a cruel, rough, tough world. A story of our times, with catchy music.

I suppose this comment ought to be on the Trump thread but following on from above. I do find the family thing weird. It's like voting for May and getting her children (if she had any) for foreign minister etc quite bizarre.

What about Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner?

Do you think that when people voted Trump the demagogue into power, they expected to get the whole family as well, considering they were supposedly voting against dynastic rule

No. I can understand Ivanka being there instead of Melanie for the time being though.

However, I don't think the people who voted for him are organised in knowing what they really want. They are objecting to things they don't want

Oh, they know what they want all right. It isnt just change.

^Obviously Trump's rise has been the result of an organised political machine and financing.

Like every presedential candidate^

I was going to comment on that too.

But unlike normal in the USA, Trump used mainly his own money apparently.

The thing that does bother me though is, is he beholden at all or somewhat, to the chinese, the russians etc as regards his debts that are used to finance his empire?

Hadn't seen the speech but just looked, daphne. Brilliant speech. I liked Hugh Laurie's speech, too, last ever Golden Globes because they have the words press, foreign and Hollywood on them, and even Association is suspect in some quarters.
Do you think they gave him it because he played a psychopathic billionaire?
I read a few of those comments, but I rarely read comments on Youtube. It's a bit like the comments in the MSM. I suppose some people can't write intelligent comments; they'd never start a thread anywhere.
Populism has got a lot to answer for.

I have no idea, dj.

You've probably already seen Meryl Streep's speech, but read the comments under this YouTube video.

Firstly, I don't really understand what kind of people spend their lives posting such really hateful comments. Do they really have nothing better to do?

Secondly, it appears there are many people with the same kind of mindset as Trump - or a few people with multiple IDs.

Obviously Trump's rise has been the result of an organised political machine and financing.

Like every presedential candidate.

However, I don't think the people who voted for him are organised in knowing what they really want. They are objecting to things they don't want

Just like all the black Americans who turned out to vote for Obama then. They both promise 'change'.

Thank you, Rinouchka.

Do you think that when people voted Trump the demagogue into power, they expected to get the whole family as well, considering they were supposedly voting against dynastic rule?

Thanks rinouchka I will have a look in the morning. Brain dead this time of day.

Not a couple, but 3, amongst others!

It was not my intention to criticise the thread ( indeed It has stimulated and informed me, so thank you wholeheartedly Whitewave and Daphnedill')but rather to respond to Ana's suggestion that some posters may have lost interest in the thread by suggesting why that might be the case, imho.

I am relatively new to GN, but it seems to me that a very long thread, for some of us who may not have the free time to read through pages of comments, can become repetitive because of the very fact that past comments are repeated by others, rather than taking on the "move forward" format of argument/counterargument. This not the case in a live discussion or debate, but lengthy threads can fall victim to it. So, continuity on a thread can be lost, except by those who are able to post constantly and hence keep abreast.

Amongst the research papers I skimmed through this morning relating to the *populism vs democracy debate, here are but a couple available on the net. I did not have time earlier to give them, and I apologise. There are more than those quoted below:

The Impact of Populism on Liberal Democracy
Brigham Young University( Nathaniel Alred)
https//populism.byu.edu

A Populist Paradox : Populist policies may harm voters but reward leaders*-- Kellog Insight- Northwestern University
https//insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu

The one I found excellent is the following

Populism-a threat or a challenge for the democratic system?
politicalscience.ku.dk

It isn't just me though gg everyone interested has stuck their oar in -good isn't it??

I have loved this thread whitewave and thank you for it. Life does sometimes get in the way of the things you want to do unfortunately but this has been mind expanding. I do have to dash off occasionally and today my daughter came over for what she calls 'mummy masters'. I have no idea if it is mainly to keep my brain ticking over or if my inane questions, when she shares what she is learning (definitely not my subject ), help her to write better but my children - including my DIL who I probably tortured by conversation into doing her degree - have always kindly shared what they are learning or understand because they know I love to get a little more insight into their subjects ... and now we have this thread. Sadly much will be expected for the next debate WW - be prepared

I also enjoy these sort of threads so much more than those which degenerate into name calling -now those really do go into circles and become tedious. I always recommend keeping it above the personnel level. I can point you to other threads that have done just that - utterly pointless exercise

I'd be interested in anything you've found online too, Rinouchka. The relationship between people and power is something which happens to fascinate me (can't help being a bit geeky).

Somebody started a thread entitled 'Democracy - What is it?' (or something like that) a few months ago, but it went down like a lead balloon. The concept is often bandied around, but I'm not convinced that people always think about what it implies. They want simplistic catchphrases to describe complex phenomena.

rinouchka that may be the case, but don't you think that is the way debate progresses. Consider how much further we are before the discussion began? There is so much we have mulled over and established. It may be that that is enough to be going on with, or we may choose to pursue the subject further. It is in our hands. As long as there is sufficient people talking to each other I can't see the problem.

I am sorry that if you have read papers available you haven't chosen to share the information

Ana, I don't think people have lost interest, but as i return from time to time (when the other life allows), I get the impression that the thread is going round in circles.

Whilst opinions are strongly held and often supported by facts, it becomes clear to the occasional posters, if not the very active ones, that civilised accord ( I don't use "agreement" as a concept) will never be reached. We interpret events, both past and current, by our political persuasion, although occasionally, we see the slant the other shows us. However, debate can become tedious if there is no time limit!

Regarding populism vs democracy, many papers have been recently written examining this( available online) and they all, in their conclusions, return to the idea that populism in itself does no harm to democracy if representation is full and if there is no erosion of democratic principles by prejudice, intolerance and self-righteousness. Of course, democracy dies if the leader's powers reach the level of demoguery and, ultimately, dictatorship. The leader's power was mentioned quite early on in the discussion.

Demoguery was at the beginning of this discussion, and it returns at the end.