Biden forges brand of liberal populism to use against Trump

[TexasTowelie]

WASHINGTON -- Joe Biden stood in a Pennsylvania metal works shop, just miles from his boyhood home, and pledged to define his presidency by a sweeping economic agenda beyond anything Americans have seen since the Great Depression and the industrial mobilization for World War II.

The prospective Democratic presidential nominee promised the effort would not just answer a pandemic-induced recession, but address centuries of racism and systemic inequalities with “a new American economy” that “finally and fully (lives) up to the words and the values enshrined in the founding documents of this nation — that we’re all created equal.”

It was a striking call coming from Biden, a 77-year-old establishment figure known more as a back-slapping deal-maker than visionary reformer. But it made plain his intention to test the reach of liberal populism as he tries to create a coalition that can defeat President Donald Trump in November.

Trump and his Republican allies argue that Biden’s positioning, especially his ongoing work with progressives, proves he’s captive to a “radical” left wing. Conversely, activists who backed Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic primary were encouraged, yet cautious, about Biden's ability to follow through while conceding that his plans on issues including climate action and criminal justice still fall short of their ideals.

Read more: https://www.kansascity.com/news/article244161122.html

[Hortensis]

1. Um, no. Bad misuse of the word "populism." As all national politicians

Last edited Sun Jul 12, 2020, 05:28 AM - Edit history (1)

do, VP Biden is appealing to many groups with various messages, including to the populist following Sanders drew to him and is now bringing to the battle against what's happening on the right. That absolutely does not make him a "liberal populist," which is almost an oxymoron. Liberals create democracies, populism is a primary tool for destroying them.

Populism does not mean just any kind "of-the-people" thing. Populism is DANGEROUS, which makes confusing people about what it is very irresponsible at best.

Populism is a method of gaining power by igniting and fanning antagonism, resentment, and other negative emotions to topple whatever is being called "the establishment." Populist movements by definition are against "the establishment" and focused on its destruction. What comes after is less immediately important to many followers. This was demonstrated by some of this era's angry populists supporting both socialistic Sanders and fascistic Trump in turn, who both vied for each other's followers. Shades of the 1930s.

Populist movements are also very often anti-democratic in methods of power seeking, and sometimes ideology, since, if they could win by majority vote, their leaders wouldn't be limited to those drawn by populist rhetoric.

So, VP Biden is the very opposite of a populist leader. He's working to rescue OUR establishment of, by and for the people, at least those people who vote, from those who would destroy it. And he's persuaded the leader of the LW class warfare populist movement to ally with him against the RW hierarchical authoritarian movement, which was a big victory right there.

Interestingly, populists followers perversely typically want leaders who are seen as from the "establishment" but seen as somehow outsiders in it. Both (?)illionaire Nutcase Trump and Independent Senator Sanders fit that pattern, albeit in very different ways.

VP Biden, again, of course not.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. As may be, to political scientists. Most people would read the article as A BROAD COALITION.

And yes, the corrupt Greed Over People establishment does need to be torn down. So there is that element of the "populism" you define.

All the same, I appreciate your thoughtful discussion.

[Hortensis]

3. That's the irresponsibility. People should never read

"populism" and think "broad coalition," any more than they should read "poison" and think "milk" or read "election theft" and think "that's how the good guys win!"

Language is a weapon of politicians, but language is a weapon in much of human affairs. ~ Chomsky

All warfare is based on deception. ~ Sun Tzu

And also extremely on point for voters who refuse to be suckered:

“Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands.

The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” ~ Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit

[JonLP24]

4. I disagree with most of this

As far as right wing populism I agree which is fascism especially if you look at Europe.

Isn’t “Right-Wing Populism” Just Fascism?

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/06/isnt-right-wing-populism-just-fascism


There were positive populist movements in the past like Prarie Populism.

Your post shows a misunderstanding of why Sanders supporters support Sanders. I don't like the Third Way and they took over the direction of the party starting with Bill Clinton and we keep electing centrist New Democrats. I'm trying to reverse that and make the party more progressive.

Bill O'Reilly started class warfare rhetoric so keep that in mind when using phrases like "class warfare".

[Hortensis]

5. Sanders had/has more than one faction or type of supporter.

Some said they want socialism. Some were romantics who wanted to be part of a great movement. Some wanted to push the Democratic Party into more action and thought supporting Sanders in the primary was a way to do it.

And some are aggresssively antagonistic populist types who in groups with leaders become potentially very dangerous.

Those were the ones both Sanders and Trump created their populist movements to draw. Sanders didn't have to draw them, but he wanted to because they provide the aggressive, destructive energy that makes winning against the will of mainstream majorities possible. They are also the ones whose very bad behaviors early on mostly defined and gave Sanders' whole movement a bad name. They were the ones he needed to reassure by promising repeatedly to take the nomination away from the choice of the majority of Democrats and the ones whose fury he kept stoked and building by repeatedly claiming Democrats were stealing dozens of state primaries from them.

When you're interested in examining those you associate with and really, really need to be aware of, a whole lot's been written about them specifically and their egregiously hostile and dishonest behaviors. Remember those articles about "Bernie Bros" back in 2015-16 as they viciously attacked journalists, Hillary, Democrats, journalists, Hillary, Democrats, on and on for two years? THAT's typical populist behavior, and some went and voted directly for Trump when they failed with Sanders.

And remember that last quote I included. Denial that truth even existed is what allowed members of Trump's and those European populist movements, left and right, to launch themselves passionately and righteously on what turned out to be dreadful, destructive courses.

It's not that much safer for those on the left who refuse to admit truth exists. They can't depend on failure to save themselves from what they're part of in this crazy era, not when Russia, China and Iran are all using them to try to sweep democracy's buwark, the Democratic Party, out of their way. Putin is known to be working to unite angry LW populists with the angry right into an unstoppable demon, but Senator Sanders foiled that for now by uniting with Biden.