What is Populism

"I think a lot of Americans are pinning their hopes on him too."

I refer you to my last post - "a lot of Americans" were not actually the majority and if things go wrong it will be interesting to see the numbers that tell us that they didn't vote for him.

As I said Ankers, some people did use the referendum to make a protest vote, and were stunned when what did happen, happened. At lot of people have done some serious thinking since the jolt that was the referendum result. I believe many people drifted into it thinking they were safe in just making a statement.

Right I have read all posts and frankly not getting much further.

I will take the liberty of just posting a few posts in the latter part of the thread, I could have picked any poster so please don't think I am challenging certain posters views.

Can I ask this question. If these views are representative of what is percieved as being populist/populism , a populist politician, populist movement then why are we for the most part only mentioning Trump/Forage/Marine Le Penn?.

'Nationalist and ultra-right politicians foster a sense of grievance, divide people into them and us then point to the outsiders- them- as to blame for all that goes wrong.'

'I think the next thing in our look at what poplulism means and how it operates is to look at the various language and concepts it employs in its pursuit of power. So perhaps those with which we are most familiar are Farage and Trump'

'I certainly agree that right wing populists jump on the nationalist band wagon but wonder if left wing ones do. Is a fight for 'the people' nationalist?

I could raise a few posts but my question really is if Nationalism / Nationalist is deemed as a 'dirty word' so to speak what would we call say The Scottish National Party and Nicola Sturgeon? Do they come under the banner of populism? They are after all a full blown Nationalist Party. What about Plaid Cymru etc. etc.

I have to say after reading every post I have not shifted far from my original post and I think that calling a person or group populist/populism is down to the politics of the poster , albeit subliminally.

I could think of Corbyn and Sturgeon as populist for example, others may think of Trump and Forage. Are they not all populist if not why not?.

They are still words /description that I can't see any point in using other than trying to make it sound disparaging against a political side, left or right of politics. It is intended and used as a 'sneer ' word/term and has no depth of affirmed logic.

I am not trying to be difficult or antagonising I genuinely see the use of populist/populism as meaningless, devoid of a factual conclusion. 'Who', 'What' and 'Where' they are either used or applicable will be seen through the prism of our own eyes and political persuasion it seems to me.

No vote is ever a proper majority. A non argument in my book.

bellsisabelle, I suspect a revote would get much the same result. Revotes generally do if I am not mistaken, though happy for you to prove otherwise?

As always though populists never carry "all" the people so it can easily become bloody.
A rather rash statement I would have thought? Do you have examples rather than someone from the 1600's?

I am fast thinking the same thing as you POGS

It wasn't an argument Ankers just a statement of fact. The thread has gloriously been mainly free of the "it's my opinion and I'm entitled" lobby and has comprised more of the "what does this mean?" "is this true?" "what have others thought about this?"

The obvious example (which I hope doesn't invoke Godwin's law as this has been the most interesting thread for some time) would be Hitler. All those people who shouted for him at his rallies were just like those who shout out for populist leaders now - they were good people who wanted to believe he would make them feel in control and make their country great again.

For that argument to hold water GracesGran, would mean that you think Farage, Trump etc want bad for the people and not good?

It isn't an argument Ankers and I will not 'argue' with you. You asked for a more recent example of a populist leader that led to a bloody end - I gave you one. Trump, Farage, we will have to wait and see. However, this thread is about populism not about certain people so I apologise to whitewave if I have taken it of subject.

off not of. I am sorry.

pogs I have mentioned those because they are primarily in the news at the moment, but my argument is that any populist movement can be boiled down to particular characteristics.

I am not sure that I have indicated that nationalism is a "dirty word" merely a component of what I have described as populism.

If you consider that Sturgeon and Corbin are populist leaders, than I am not sure that you have understood the concepts as I have outlined them. I think if you are keen to find a left wing populist then you would probably be more fruitful in looking at South America. However, Daphnedil can help you better than me with that one.

I think that because you know I am not a supporter of either Farage Le Pen or Trump, you are making assumptions about my argument that simply doesn't stand up.

What I have attempted to do is to describe a certain political ideology/discourse that has grown during the past decade. In doing so I have looked at primary characteristics, but this is not new, this type of discourse has been going on for centuries and there are acres of publications describing it.

There will be acres more after Farages involvement in the Brexit vote and Trump vote. Le Pen and Wilders will be watched with interest. Academics and politicians are keen to describe the movement that is clearly making earthquakes in the European and American political world. To try to understand it and address it needs understanding and debate.

I think Sturgeon could be populist, but as she is replaceable I think, maybe not?
I dont really consider Corbyn as populist as his following is not large enough?

GG, I will use a different word other than "argue" in future with you.

For what it is worth, I think whitewave is right in her op with the 3 characteristics, other than as I have said, whether authoritarian is the exact word to use.

Oh this style of "argument" is sounding more and more familiar <sigh>

I agree, Daphne...

The trouble is when the debate degenerates it gets absolutely nowhere but round and around. I am sure that most people get bored and turn off, which is such a shame as we've had some super contributions, and I for one have learned a lot.

I have just found an example quoted of left-wing populism actually known as the known as the 'Populist Party' or the Populists. It was ...

"an agrarian-populist political party in the United States and drew support from angry farmers in the West and South and operated on the left-wing of American politics."

It existed from 1891 to 1919. You have to wonder if calling yourself populist does you any favours.

Also and new phrase (apparently) - pluto-populism - coined for people such as Trump, the rich man casting himself as a man of the people.

WW
I posted:-

'I will take the liberty of just posting a few posts in the latter part of the thread, I could have picked 'any poster' so please 'don't think I am challenging certain posters views'."

I thought this thread was open to views from all of us and I have posted as I thought as a generalised comment. I did not post in a manner which aimed toward any singular poster and I am surprised you read my post as an affront to yourself.

It was a post that I thought would be read as widening the debate as to who, why and where the words are used and by whom.

I asked a question as to why certain politicians and parties are called populist given the definition and others are not. Why is one Nationalist Party different in the mind of some to another and that was the reason I mentioned The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cwmru. I do not call them populist because I dislike the words populist/populism.

My thought remains that one person will think this that and tuther political party are populist but to others on another political side of the divide would believe in a different choice of who they think of as populist.

I am not vying for a fight here but I do find that the belief 'populist/populism is a right wing domain is bewildering. Given the definition could it not be said that Labour/Co- operative/Unions are populist? , given there is agreement on the definition.

'Populism is a political style of action that mobilizes a large alienated element of population against a government seen as controlled by an out-of-touch closed elite that acts on behalf of its own interests'.

The underlying ideology of the Populists can be left, right, or middle. Its goal is to unite the uncorrupt and the unsophisticated (the 'little man') against the corrupt dominant elites (usually the orthodox politicians) and their camp followers (usually the rich and the intellectuals). It is guided by the belief that political and social goals are best achieved by the direct actions of the masses. Although it comes into being where mainstream political institutions fail to deliver, there is no identifiable economic or social set of conditions that give rise to it, and it is not confined to any particular social class.[1]'

whitewave a familiar phenomenon
. To quote Theresa May, " Remind you of someone?"

what a lovely description!!

I think I mention Watt Tyler that was a populist movement didn't last long though

That was to gg

pogs at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum - I have given the examples I have because they are directly or indirectly affecting the UK. So Farage, Trump, Le Pen and Wilders have been used as examples.

I am about to totter to bed so will reply to other stuff in the morning. I'm a lark and brain dead at this time of day.

ankers "For that argument to hold water GracesGran, would mean that you think Farage, Trump etc want bad for the people and not good?" If by that you mean that Hitler wanted BAD for the people, can I point out that actually Hitler wanted what he thought was GOOD for the people of Germany?

His view of what was good and his ways of achieving that were mistaken and worse to the point of paranoia (parents and children spying on each other and denouncing those who didn't toe the line, annihilating those of unwanted race or belief or sexual orientation, not listening his advisors, invading other countries and occupying them, assigning people to savage work camps, and so on) but he did not do it all because he wanted bad for his fatherland.

I suspect that there is a discussion/debate to be had on 'nationalism' too. Though perhaps on a separate thread.

As a Scot, but not a Scottish nationalist, I think that in many respects the SNP is a populist movement.

The sense of grievance against "Westminster" fostered particularly amongst the less educated, has given rise to a bitter fanatisism epitomised by the hate filled outpourings of the so called cybernats. A lot of untrue statements and ludicrously optimistic economic predictions have been made and the SNP, although not right wing is undoubtedly authoritarian. There is now a single police force, the "named person" policy and the campaign to replace the BBC six o clock news by a Scotish version which could turn out to be a daily hour long party political broadcast.

This is a slippery slope which has to be resisted. Nicola Sturgeon is a charismatic politician, far more able than Trump or Farage. She knows how to get elected, no matter how badly her government performs.

Varian
I agree with you totally about the SNP being a very dangerous authoritarian party, and anti democratic. Nicola Sturgeon Is IMO power crazed and the "named person" policy certainly has echoes of Nazism and Stalinism.