Yes, and TRIP suggested that Nixon facilitated the rise of the elite class and money markets. Traditional manufacturing moved to China, Reagan and Thatcher,, supported the growth with the embracement of neo-liberalism. Whole swathes of the USA and U.K. were laid to waste and have never ever really recovered.
These are the areas that has the highest support of the populist politicians, like Trump and Farage.
Gransnet forums
News & politics
Explanation for the rise in populism
(77 Posts)I have just been listening to TRIP USA. And they had a good article explaining the rise in populism in the USA which has been mirrored in the U.K. and other countries in Europe.
Put very simply.
Beginning with Bretton Woods, where many renowned economists met - including a Keynes - aiming to reconstruct the world economy and trade - the zeitgeist of the time argued after two devastating world wars, that countries who traded together did not go to war. The USA at the time had 2% of the total worlds population but 50% of the worlds trade, so of course Bretton Woods was certainly constructed to advantage the USA, but it also enabled other countries through trade relatively free from tariffs etc to develop and expand their own trade.
This was when many of the rules enabling free-ish trade were constructed. The USA dollar was pinned to gold during the initial period. So the 50s in the USA and Europe was a period of manufacturing, high employment and growing living standards, particularly in the USA where the working classes achieved a level of income and living standard un imagined during the 1930s.
There were notable exceptions to this - China being one country, constrained by a full communist economy, however when Xi took the chairmanship, he was ready to open up the Chinese economy to world capitalism, and Nixon decided that a lot of manufactured goods produced in the USA could be made far cheaper in China. “What about our jobs”? Said the w/c. Don’t worry they were told, you will be re-trained in the new technology etc
Nixon then allowed China to tie its currency to the us$. The global market took off with China becoming the workshop of the world, the city elite in the west becoming ever more wealthy but the result was devastation in many areas of the USA and U.K. This was the Reagan and Thatcher period, where wealth inequality grew like Topsy. Unions were hollowed out and whole towns were boarded up and emptied of working class jobs.
The promised re+training never happened, and people’s living standards stalled.
Things began to pick up for the w/c during the 2000s, and in the U.K. public services supported by the government - schools the NHS and other services thrived better than they had done for years.
Then came 2008 and the world economy came crashing down. People lost their homes and jobs and were back to square 1.
Governments seem to flounder with little answer to the unemployed and ill-housed.
Enter Trump -stage right. He “got” the grievances of the working class, who saw the elite getting wealthier and wealthier each year that passed, and immigrants willing to do the w/c jobs at a much cheaper rate than the indigenous w(c were either willing or able to afford.
“Make America Great Again” harks back to the period of the 50s and 60s when the w/c had good manufacturing jobs in all sorts of industries and the wealth inequality was at a reasonable standard.
This TRIP USA argues is why populists like Trump (and I think in the U.K. and wider Europe) has won the vote with the siren call of more jobs, crushing the elite snd stopping immigration.
Of course we know that in the end it will all come crashing down, but I think it is a pretty convincing argument as to why populism has taken such a hold on the (particularly) w/c population.
Sorry this is rushed and simplistic, but hopefully you get the drift of their argument.
keeping quiet We may have fewer grammar schools, but many more people go to university and a much larger proportion of the populstion have degrees.
The heyday of the grammar school was when the majority of people went into the workforce at 18. Around 1960, when I went to university, only 3-4% of the school leavers went to university and of that number the proportion of women going to university was even smaller.
Things always change with a change of technology. The industrial revolution led to the establishment and growth of newspapers because of rising literacy. The internet revolution would have decimated the newspaper industry regardless of anything Mrs Thatcher did. Why go out and spend money on a newspaper when all the news is in your pocket and updated every minute?
Populiism has always been around. What were the various Peasant Revolts of the middle ages, if not exercises in populism. To be a leader, you need the mass of the people to follow you. This is why Nigel Farage is doing so well, he says what so many people feel but were not allowed to articculate under recent governments of all parties.
I guess I should have given a working definition of populism at the OP. Sorry not to have done so.
Populism is always characterised as a group ideology of “the people” which sees another group often referred to as “the elite” as being in opposition.
To put it very simply it is ideology of little depth or character which simply put seeks to divide and rule.
It can be attached to either end of the political spectrum, and generally raises its head during times of hardship (of any kind, but frequently economic) .
Its leaders are frequently seen as charismatic, but usually authoritarian.
Periods where populism raises its head never end well.
Yes monica decisions that are based on what people “feel” do not make good or lasting policy.
I'm assuming that the quoted part of your 07-Dec-25 18:25:19 post finishes with the paragraph starting "and finally" ...Willow3
Although not a comprehensive view the Belt and Road Initiative, (what has been called China's Silk Road policy) it describes the extreme competition from China, with other nations following their low cost production. This, although many companies stood out against it for as long as they could, led to the off-shoring of production and many industries disappearing. As far as I'm aware (I was working in the electronics industry at the time) no government had a plan to counteract this even though the plans of China and other countries with large, low paid citizens, were very clear.
I can't agree with the rest as it is simply badly thought through opinion. Off shoring was not the the fault of the generation growing up now. We had some amazing growth in electronics in the 1960s and 1970s. New firms were springing up in the UK, but even then some were off-shoring. By the 1990s it was almost impossible to keep manufacturing going in many if our industries. What has that to do with the generation growing up in 2025?
We Baby Boomer grew up getting more an more comfortable because areas like electronics grew. First fridges and TVs in our homes then ever automated washing machines and dishwashers followed by increased technology in communication allowing faster, more seamless information exchange. This was our experience, not our children's and, off the back of this expansion we expanded what we could do with our leisure time and our children grew up with a very different "normal" to both our parents childhood and ours.
Do you really think young people can assess our past as they grow up and tell us we are not giving them either the right vision or tools? When has that ever happened? Stop blaming other, easily identifiable groups. While we do that progress will continue to go on elsewhere.
Whitewavemark2
Yes monica decisions that are based on what people “feel” do not make good or lasting policy.
But in this case they were only felt because they could not be said out loud without attracting public venom from interest groups within our various political parties and outside them.
This is very different from being driven by emotion.
I agree the lack of education in critical reading and viewing, not to mention logical thought, is a serious flaw. It's not simply down to the demise of grammar schools: I was taught those skills in a technical high school.
M0nica
Whitewavemark2
Yes monica decisions that are based on what people “feel” do not make good or lasting policy.
But in this case they were only felt because they could not be said out loud without attracting public venom from interest groups within our various political parties and outside them.
This is very different from being driven by emotion.
They were not said out loud for very good reason. Post WW2, it was recognised that a society based on hate and division (aka Germany) is something to be avoided if at all possible.
A society driven by hate for fellow man is not a society that will succeed in the long run, nor imo desirable.
Whitewavemark2
I guess I should have given a working definition of populism at the OP. Sorry not to have done so.
Populism is always characterised as a group ideology of “the people” which sees another group often referred to as “the elite” as being in opposition.
To put it very simply it is ideology of little depth or character which simply put seeks to divide and rule.
It can be attached to either end of the political spectrum, and generally raises its head during times of hardship (of any kind, but frequently economic) .
Its leaders are frequently seen as charismatic, but usually authoritarian.
Periods where populism raises its head never end well.
How do you distinguish populism from a popular movement for change?
After all, MOnica's revolting peasants 'felt' that they were oppressed by a system which overwhelmingly favoured the 'elite', and quite rightly so because they were. They were led by people who wanted change that would benefit the peasantry. Can that really be defined as populist?
The criteria of ' hardship' is difficult. Are 'the people' expected to just hang on and endure the hardship, or can they agitate for a better way of handling or relieving it without their leaders being labelled 'populist'?
Don't leaders always tend to be charismatic?
Authoritarianism tends to accompany violent change, as in the overthrow of a government when the leaders find that governing a country is far more difficult than controlling a large number of people who agree with them because a country's population will always have adherents of the former ruling group within it.
And, of course, what develops once a 'populist' has taken control depends very much on what their objective was in the first place.
Yes I think it can, simply because it is such a thin ideology - it does not have much to offer in any depth, but does adequately describe the phenomenon we are seeing now and historically.
It is simply describing the way charismatic often authoritarian leaders rule by division. They can be either end of the political spectrum.
The outcome may result in desirable change for the “people” or not.
It may be violent or not.
But it always identifies at least two opposing groups, with the
Emphasis on opposition and hate. Divide and rule.
There are other much more adequate philosophies ideologies imo that give a much deeper understanding of society, but we are discussing this because that is what Katty Kay and Scaramucci are using to describe how populists have captured the voters imagination.
Whitewavemark2
M0nica
Whitewavemark2
Yes monica decisions that are based on what people “feel” do not make good or lasting policy.
But in this case they were only felt because they could not be said out loud without attracting public venom from interest groups within our various political parties and outside them.
This is very different from being driven by emotion.They were not said out loud for very good reason. Post WW2, it was recognised that a society based on hate and division (aka Germany) is something to be avoided if at all possible.
A society driven by hate for fellow man is not a society that will succeed in the long run, nor imo desirable.
You illustrate the point perfectly. people do not start hating their fellow man, they start being concerned about an issue and look to the governent to be aware of the issue and address it. When that doesn't happen, this drives them back into a more extreme viewpoint on the basis that if they shut a bit louder, someone will listen.
The UKIPs, Reforms et al, only come into play when people are getting so angry that no one will listen to them and instead turn to those demagogues who seem to be good at getting a reaction from those who should have listened to them with courtesy and consideration in the first place. That is how the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Trump get into power.
Democracy is the right of the population to vote for the leaders and policies it wants. Unfortunately, at present, one group of people seem to think they are morally superior and better educated and all together nicer people than hoi polloi and their nasty little ways and democracy is only truly active when it keeps them in power or close to the levers of power.
They are wrong. There views are no better, or worse than any other party. Since the beginning of this century we have a succession of governments, who see their purpose in life to ignore the concerns of ordinary people, in favour of what getsthe moral approval of their mates, whether these be individuals or groups. Its now pay back time and they have only themselves to blame.
Democracy is the right of the population to vote for the leaders and policies it wants. Unfortunately, at present, one group of people seem to think they are morally superior and better educated and all together nicer people than hoi polloi and their nasty little ways and democracy is only truly active when it keeps them in power or close to the levers of power.
Who are you pointing at there, MOnica?
monica you are describing the elite as opposed to “the people” 😊😊
Maizie I am pointing to all those that populate the parties that have dominated our political system since roughly 2000 and their various hangers on, special groups in and out of the parties, but who see the chance of power always dangling before their eyes.
Yes, Whitewave2 when I write of one group of people seem to think they are morally superior and better educated and all together nicer people than hoi polloi and their nasty little ways and democracy is only truly active when it keeps them in power or close to the levers of power. I am talking of an elite.
And that is the problem, they have a monopoly of power and look at the other 99% of the population as ignorant oiks.
However in Reform and the Green party we are growing parties, with new agendas. Unfortunately the left wing of labour and the right wing of the conservatives, are infiltrating both respective parties, so it will be change but no change
M0nica
Whitewavemark2
M0nica
Whitewavemark2
Yes monica decisions that are based on what people “feel” do not make good or lasting policy.
But in this case they were only felt because they could not be said out loud without attracting public venom from interest groups within our various political parties and outside them.
This is very different from being driven by emotion.They were not said out loud for very good reason. Post WW2, it was recognised that a society based on hate and division (aka Germany) is something to be avoided if at all possible.
A society driven by hate for fellow man is not a society that will succeed in the long run, nor imo desirable.You illustrate the point perfectly. people do not start hating their fellow man, they start being concerned about an issue and look to the governent to be aware of the issue and address it. When that doesn't happen, this drives them back into a more extreme viewpoint on the basis that if they shut a bit louder, someone will listen.
The UKIPs, Reforms et al, only come into play when people are getting so angry that no one will listen to them and instead turn to those demagogues who seem to be good at getting a reaction from those who should have listened to them with courtesy and consideration in the first place. That is how the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Trump get into power.
Democracy is the right of the population to vote for the leaders and policies it wants. Unfortunately, at present, one group of people seem to think they are morally superior and better educated and all together nicer people than hoi polloi and their nasty little ways and democracy is only truly active when it keeps them in power or close to the levers of power.
They are wrong. There views are no better, or worse than any other party. Since the beginning of this century we have a succession of governments, who see their purpose in life to ignore the concerns of ordinary people, in favour of what getsthe moral approval of their mates, whether these be individuals or groups. Its now pay back time and they have only themselves to blame.
At last someone with a broader outlook, rational rather than emotional. People these days are better educated and have a broader view of the world, whereas in the past, the poor were mainly concerned with simply surviving.
Tony Blair is still pulling the strings in the background, determined to have his own way. Those of us who are branded racists are actually well aware of the end result he is envisioning and we don't want it.
Interesting monica
All the young members of our extended members are certainly looking at the Greens
M0nica
Maizie I am pointing to all those that populate the parties that have dominated our political system since roughly 2000 and their various hangers on, special groups in and out of the parties, but who see the chance of power always dangling before their eyes.
Yes, Whitewave2 when I write of one group of people seem to think they are morally superior and better educated and all together nicer people than hoi polloi and their nasty little ways and democracy is only truly active when it keeps them in power or close to the levers of power. I am talking of an elite.
And that is the problem, they have a monopoly of power and look at the other 99% of the population as ignorant oiks.
However in Reform and the Green party we are growing parties, with new agendas. Unfortunately the left wing of labour and the right wing of the conservatives, are infiltrating both respective parties, so it will be change but no change
I think that’s too sweeping. People often feel ignored, but that doesn’t mean governments are consciously working only for the approval of some inner circle. Policy choices are influenced by economics, constraints, public opinion, and party priorities, not just by a desire to impress friends or interest groups.
It’s also not accurate to say their views are ‘no better or worse than any other party’ — political views do vary in quality depending on evidence, practicality, and impact. Some policies solve problems, others don’t. That doesn’t make anyone morally superior; it just means different ideas have different merits.
We should analyse why people feel unheard without reducing politics to good vs. bad groups. That framing just deepens polarisation and doesn’t help us understand what’s actually gone wrong
Which brings us back to the OP
The thing is those who will vote reform don't think anything has ' gone wrong' they think they are voting for the right party in the same way you do.
Galaxy
The thing is those who will vote reform don't think anything has ' gone wrong' they think they are voting for the right party in the same way you do.
Who is that addressed to, Galaxy?
I don't think anyone is talking about 'wrong' or 'right' voting choices.
I thought we were talking about 'why' populism...
DAR spoke about looking to see where things have gone wrong. She was I think talking about why people feel unheard, firstly I can't believe that is surprise to anyone but that's by the by. They presumably feel heard now by reform and for them that is the right thing not necessarily anything ' going wrong'.
I do think it is very hard for us to understand people's different views particularly recently where identity has become entwined with what politics we follow.
Galaxy
DAR spoke about looking to see where things have gone wrong. She was I think talking about why people feel unheard, firstly I can't believe that is surprise to anyone but that's by the by. They presumably feel heard now by reform and for them that is the right thing not necessarily anything ' going wrong'.
I do think it is very hard for us to understand people's different views particularly recently where identity has become entwined with what politics we follow.
But this is what DAR said: We should analyse why people feel unheard without reducing politics to good vs. bad groups. That framing just deepens polarisation and doesn’t help us understand what’s actually gone wrong
I didn't take that to mean that she thinks voting for Reform is wrong. I thought it was referring to what was going wrong if people feel unheard.
The premise of the OP is that since the Nixon Era - 69-74? - the working class have been gradually left unheard over the years with each decade getting worse and worse.
Which is why they turned to Trump and are turning to Farage who have promised them a voice, because they maintain that they will rid politics of the elite - remember “drain the swamp” unfortunately all Trump has done is to replace one elite with another, and that is exactly what Farage will do.
However, I suspect Trump has rapidly lost the trust and support of many now.
Just what exactly is it the people who vote Reform were 'not allowed to say before'?
But now they feel able to say it?
What do they want to say?
Maremia
Just what exactly is it the people who vote Reform were 'not allowed to say before'?
But now they feel able to say it?
What do they want to say?
There- in lies the 64$ question.
I also think that most understand why whole swathes of the population are unhappy and looking for someone to blame and who promises to make their life better.
What I don’t understand is why they are willing to vote for someone like Trump and Farage with such moral vacumns. I felt exactly the same about Johnson - why on Earth vote for such a poor examples of a human being?
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »