Populism on a sharp decline

petra

Urmstongran
Did you see that. And yet another assumption that we don't read anything. So predictable.

Have you read it then?

Either of you?

Also she possibly hasn't noticed that Canada is a far more Liberal country than the USA - it even has a Liberal Party government, somewhat more liberal than Joe Biden.

Whitewavemark2

To my mind it is a parasitic ideology that sits on the back of mainstream ideologies which are themselves grounded in a wide systematic set of beliefs

Good grief.
Do you talk this way in real life?

Do you ever find yourself sitting alone at parties?
?

MayBee70

I just saw a Trump supporter on Ch4 News say that if Biden wins she’ll move to Canada. Can anyone make sense of that?

She can’t move to Canada the border is closed, Covid regulations.

It’s hard to see Trump as a winner he is 10points behind with only a week to go, and the rednecks don’t like it one bit.

Urmstongran
Did you see that. And yet another assumption that we don't read anything. So predictable.

I just saw a Trump supporter on Ch4 News say that if Biden wins she’ll move to Canada. Can anyone make sense of that?

varian

Thanks Maizie. The analysis is pretty convincing but I do hope it's wrong. I doubt whether the people who should read this ever will.

What do you think/hope might be wrong about it, varian?

What is scaring is that the indications are based on proposed legislation and, to a lesser extent, on government actions. Doesn't history tell us that once a government is given powers it will use them?

Callistemon

^It is often used to define what is seen as “the people” against the elite. So it is an ideology of division, setting what it terms as the virtuous will of the people against the corrupt elite. It is used in any area that is useful to divide the population.^

So are we led to believe that we have many populist governments when in actual fact they are elitist?

Ie ^the corrupt elite^

"Volk" is the German word for "people". Hitler and Goebbels used the word frequently as part of their propaganda war to make the people believe they were at the centre of everything, whereas the opposite was true.

Nazism was populist because it "sold" the idea of people's power against rational thinkers, who had historically influenced public opinion. The people, of course, weren't in power, but were softened up to believe irrational thinking, much of which contradicted the people's previous moral values.

Thanks Maizie. The analysis is pretty convincing but I do hope it's wrong. I doubt whether the people who should read this ever will.

Some of you might be interested in this. I know its got 'brexit' and 'fascism in the URL, but fascism is built on populism...initially...

westcountrybylines.co.uk/brexit-and-fascism-heed-the-warning-signs-while-you-still-can-mr-mangnall-a-constituent-writes-to-his-mp/

Lady HD I once had a disagreement with someone who claimed that if a large number of people believed something to be a fact then it was!
Now I understand!

LadyHonoriaDedlock

Whitewavemark2, I don't think anybody, not any reputable scientist anyway, accepts climate change as 'fact'. That's not the way scientists work. That rapid climate change and the associated disruption to global weather patterns is caused by human activity is a theory based on consistency of observation, and a theory holds until observations consistently contradict it. Scientists deal in scepticism and there's a Nobel Prize, not to mention the undying gratitude of very wealthy oil squillionaires, waiting for the scientists who convincingly overturns climate change theory, but none ever has. If any scientist claims otherwise, check who's bankrolling them.

'Facts' are the stock in trade of the populist. 'Fact' says to the uninformed person that what the populist is saying is irrefutable, so don't bother trying. 'Common sense' works the same way, it says 'just accept it without question' or 'don't you worry your pretty little head about it'. Listen to the creationist dismissing evolution as 'just a theory', which is abusing the proper meaning of 'theory'. A theory is not a whim, an idea, a hypothesis, it's an explanation that has proved consistent with observations over a period of time. Evolution has held up for a century and a half. Ah, says, the creationist, but can you prove that evolution is true (I know that creationism is true because it says so in this here book, written thousands of years ago and mangled by generations of translators, and everything in the book is true because the book says it is). You can't prove a theory, you can only amass more and more observational evidence that fits. You can disprove it; a fossilised rabbit in the Devonian fossil record would do it, but no such thing has ever been found. Squillionaire mineral conglomerates like creationists and other biblical literalists; it gives them dominion over nature!

It's funny how populists never get so animated about quantum theory. It's held up perfectly since the last decade of the nineteenth century and, as the late Richard Feynman said, anybody who says they understand it is lying.

? thank you. I needEd to check with DD before I posted.

Your explanation is much more eloquent.

Whitewavemark2, I don't think anybody, not any reputable scientist anyway, accepts climate change as 'fact'. That's not the way scientists work. That rapid climate change and the associated disruption to global weather patterns is caused by human activity is a theory based on consistency of observation, and a theory holds until observations consistently contradict it. Scientists deal in scepticism and there's a Nobel Prize, not to mention the undying gratitude of very wealthy oil squillionaires, waiting for the scientists who convincingly overturns climate change theory, but none ever has. If any scientist claims otherwise, check who's bankrolling them.

'Facts' are the stock in trade of the populist. 'Fact' says to the uninformed person that what the populist is saying is irrefutable, so don't bother trying. 'Common sense' works the same way, it says 'just accept it without question' or 'don't you worry your pretty little head about it'. Listen to the creationist dismissing evolution as 'just a theory', which is abusing the proper meaning of 'theory'. A theory is not a whim, an idea, a hypothesis, it's an explanation that has proved consistent with observations over a period of time. Evolution has held up for a century and a half. Ah, says, the creationist, but can you prove that evolution is true (I know that creationism is true because it says so in this here book, written thousands of years ago and mangled by generations of translators, and everything in the book is true because the book says it is). You can't prove a theory, you can only amass more and more observational evidence that fits. You can disprove it; a fossilised rabbit in the Devonian fossil record would do it, but no such thing has ever been found. Squillionaire mineral conglomerates like creationists and other biblical literalists; it gives them dominion over nature!

It's funny how populists never get so animated about quantum theory. It's held up perfectly since the last decade of the nineteenth century and, as the late Richard Feynman said, anybody who says they understand it is lying.

Callistemon

Thanks.

But at the same time managing to remain the corrupt elite?

That seems to be another defining feature of populist regimes. Lots of rewards (usually financial) to those who support the government... Applies to both right and left wing regimes

Callistemon

Thanks.

But at the same time managing to remain the corrupt elite?

?

Thanks.

But at the same time managing to remain the corrupt elite?

Callistemon

^It is often used to define what is seen as “the people” against the elite. So it is an ideology of division, setting what it terms as the virtuous will of the people against the corrupt elite. It is used in any area that is useful to divide the population.^

So are we led to believe that we have many populist governments when in actual fact they are elitist?

Ie ^the corrupt elite^

No - what characterises populists is the rhetoric of division.

So Trump talked about emptying the swamp. Pitting the voter against this amorphous entity.

Likewise Cummings and Johnson pitting the northern voter against the London elite or Westminster elite.

It always seeks to divide.

Why New Zealand rejected populist ideas other nations have embraced.

Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s Labour prime minister who was returned to power for a second term with a commanding majority, has often been hailed internationally as a foil to global surges in right-wing movements and the rise of strongmen such as Donald Trump and Brazil’s leader, Jair Bolsonaro.

But the historic victory of Ardern’s centre-left party on polling day – its best result in five decades, winning 64 of parliament’s 120 seats – was not the only measure by which New Zealand bucked global trends in its vote. The public also rejected some political hopefuls’ rallying cries to populism, conspiracy theories and scepticism about Covid-19.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/19/why-new-zealand-rejected-populist-ideas-other-nations-have-embraced

It is often used to define what is seen as “the people” against the elite. So it is an ideology of division, setting what it terms as the virtuous will of the people against the corrupt elite. It is used in any area that is useful to divide the population.

So are we led to believe that we have many populist governments when in actual fact they are elitist?

Ie the corrupt elite

Interesting, Iam64 and lemongrove

Feelings of anxiety, feeling depressed are surely normal reactions to a crisis such as the one we are all coping with at the moment. Perhaps because the threat is invisible makes people more nervous and resentful of their fellow human beings whom they see flouting the rules.
However, those normal feelings being referred to as a mental health illnesses is worrying in itself, especially when the terms are used by those without training in MH.

I understood that populism as a term refers to the rights of ordinary people as opposed to elitism which seems a more apt description of what some people think of our present government.

Kamiso I read that 'knuckledraggers' comment differently.

We all know that there are people of poor intellect in this world . Whilst it may be an unkind description of people with low intellectual ability ..they are not confined to left or right wing politics,,,but are often at the extreme end of the one they latch on to and cause all kinds of difficulties for more 'moderate' thinkers.!

Kamiso

Then you get people calling those who think differently “knuckledraggers” and are bemused that those you have insulted so nastily don’t want anything to do with you or your political views. Sneering and contempt won’t win votes.

It would also help if the experts stopped contradicting each other all of the time. Is a so called expert from Cambridge’s view more valid than an expert from Oxford? It seems their own ego is the driving force rather than a genuine search for truth.

Experts do disagree, but not to the extent populists would have you believe.

There is a scientific consensus backed up by peer examination etc. and nothing is accepted without evidential back up.

An example is climate change. Remember when so called experts refused to accept climate change as a fact. They had nothing to back up their claim, except refusal to accept the evidence. But for a number of years climate deniers views were treated as valid as the climatologists evidence base arguments. What happened was that over a number of years the evidence has become overwhelming and now only the flat earthers believe that climate change doesn’t exist.

Populist rhetoric is not subjected to such rigorous testing because it can’t be. It is based on emotion.

More misquoting. The "knuckledraggers" are only those who have not yet understood how much, now more than ever, we need experts and should respect their valuable contribution.

The "people have had enough of experts" was a disgraceful populist statement by Gove.

It would also help if the experts stopped contradicting each other all of the time. Is a so called expert from Cambridge’s view more valid than an expert from Oxford? It seems their own ego is the driving force rather than a genuine search for truth.

Do you have an example of this?

Then you get people calling those who think differently “knuckledraggers” and are bemused that those you have insulted so nastily don’t want anything to do with you or your political views. Sneering and contempt won’t win votes.

It would also help if the experts stopped contradicting each other all of the time. Is a so called expert from Cambridge’s view more valid than an expert from Oxford? It seems their own ego is the driving force rather than a genuine search for truth.