General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLook at our populist, principled president taking on gas and oil corps
President Biden @POTUS 19mOil prices are decreasing, gas prices should too.
Last time oil was $96 a barrel, gas was $3.62 a gallon. Now its $4.31.
Oil and gas companies shouldnt pad their profits at the expense of hardworking Americans.
Link to tweet
...go Joe!
captain queeg
(10,036 posts)Ive also heard that term applied to trump and zelinsky. In my understanding I can see it applied to Zelinsky but cant see it for trump. Though I suppose I could see it for the 2016 election.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...often used pejoratively against liberals and progressives, as well as figures on the right.
here's another perspective:
___populism is neither right nor leftnor anti-scienceby definition. It is merely a concern, whether genuine or feigned, for the common people. Todays most prominent populists include Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Sen. Bernie Sanderspeople who base their policies on valid evidence and have given their lives to fighting everything that the far right represents.
Indeed, the most crucial progressive political movements of our timeBlack Lives Matter and #MeToo, climate marches and gun-reform ralliesare by nature populist. Founded at ground level, often by victims of racism, sexism, environmental injustice, and lax gun laws, they were then energized by the fed-up masses.
Similarly, during the 1890s, a group of Kansas farmersbankrupt due to falling crop prices, drought, greedy railroad monopolies, and a federal government serving powerful interestscoined the phrase populist to describe an alliance of the people. Within a year, their Peoples Party, or Populist Party, was a national coalition of farmers, unions, and workers organizations. Their radical ideas included labor rights, corporate regulation, the progressive income tax, womens suffrage, popular election of senators, and the eight-hour workday. No movement to overthrow corrupt power will get far without true unity, and the party was thwarted by racism and nativism within its own ranks. The Democratic Party platform today, though, owes much to their efforts.
Yet populist remains a dismissive, even pejorative descriptor in prominent liberal discourse, a polite way of hinting at bigoted fools wearing red trucker hats. Journalists surely know what populism actually means, but they apply it to dangerous reactionary movements far more readily than to progressive uprisings. This habitual, unchecked misuse of the term perhaps betrays an unexamined distrust of, or even distaste for, the proletariatwhose power might upend the capitalist structures from which plenty of liberals, including the most influential voices of establishment media, benefit. This is the sad grain of truth beneath working-class resentment of the so-called media elite, and it provides fodder for condemnation of our essential, often heroic free press.
https://www.cjr.org/opinion/populism-progressive-aoc-sanders-warren.php
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Time to restore its accurate meaning.
What a beautifully written piece. It helps me understand why I get so angry at the habitual abuse of the word "populism." It's deliberate and disgusting.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)Populism demands and expects exceptions to the standards of liberal democracy, parliamentary government and the rule of law. It is an ideology in which the ruling elites, most often personified by a single charismatic leader (an increasingly necessary attribute to take advantage of the mass and social media), cultivates a vocal and active minority base to propel them to power. This base may or may not (which is usually the case) represent the majority of "the people", and they don't particularly care whether their interests correspond to the will of the majority as expressed in a representative democracy, as long as their interests are upheld by the people in power. The biggest danger of populism comes from the fact that it is the populist leadership who get to define who "the people" are. More importantly, they get to define who the "enemies of the people" are, and this definition is exceedingly fluid and ever-changing.
If you take Putin as an example, you can easily trace how populism may lead to despotism. Putin started out as a populist, and look where he is now.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)... you're describing a faux populist, a demagogue.
Populism has deep roots in anti-elitism, anti-monopolies, against oppressive government or business interests.
No matter how some try and equate them, present-day republicanism isn't populism, it's autocratic corporatism dressed up in movement politics.
To describe Putin's dictatorship as 'populism' completely buys into his own demagoguery about the popularity of his autocratic rule. It's just not analagous to U.S populism. It's contrived and forced propaganda.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)His Rough Riders, for example, was a populist institution: an extra-governmental unit under the command of a charismatic leader. But his presidency was not populist at all. His anti-trust laws, even as they dismantled the stranglehold of big business on US economy and government, were not populist. They were first and foremost protective of democratic institutions in need of protection against big business, not "the people". And his foreign policy was essentially imperialist, not at all reflective of populist sentiment.
Populism may be anti-elitist, and in rare cases anti-big business, but it is certainly not against oppressive government. If anything, it is a gateway to oppressive government. There are tons of historical precedents, both on the left and the right, that make this obvious.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...what we've seen is a lot of claptrap about progressivism (which is essentially American populism at its roots), being demonized as some harbinger of fascist regimes that have sprouted up around the world.
It's even been extended to Trump, but he's a good example of the way the term has been misappropriated to try and present their movement politics as popular. it's just not the same thing, no matter who's doing the dumbing-down of the term or misappropriating it.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)Feminism, gay rights movement, environmentalism, nuclear non-proliferation movement, intra-parliamentary progressivism, progressive Catholicism, are all non-populist. On the other hand, the "sovereign citizen" movement is probably the purest form of populism being practiced in America today.
What you are probably referring to is populism as it is advocated by the Democratic Socialists of America. That's a pretty small but vocal group with a nominal charismatic leader (Bernie Sanders) at its helm. They are, indeed, true populists, and are not much different from other populist movements worldwide, left or right. They keep trying very hard to obtain the label of "progressive" for their exclusive use, but not very successfully.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...Sen. Bernie Sanders' politics are mainstream Democratic, with a great deal of his initiatives advancing in some form in the legislation just passed.
Sanders is Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Budget, responsible for drafting Congress' annual budget plan and monitoring action on the budget for the Federal Govt. The committee has jurisdiction over the Congressional Budget Office.
You can't get more mainstream Democratic than that.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)Sanders failed to secure the Democratic Party nomination for President, twice, not because his politics were mainstream, but precisely because they were NOT mainstream. His legislative record may appear less extreme than his ideology simply because his legislative proposals sufficiently deviated from the mainstream to not find enough support from the mainstream. His legislative record is made up of legislation that didn't fail to pass, thus reflecting only his position on the views that found sufficient support from the mainstream, and excludes his previously expressed views that didn't find support with the mainstream.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...in fact, it can be argued that Sanders' entry into that contest pulled the other candidates toward progressivise policies, which neither Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden were known to prioritize in their politics as senators.
The party platform became more progressive, and that progressive impetus has persisted throughout the last campaign, and is reflected in Pres. Biden's initiatives, and indeed, as I pointed out, in the Senate Budget Committee where Sen. Sanders is Chairman.
You just described every legislator whose proposals were watered down in committee or conference to get bills passed. We may not be at the point where things like universal health care, free college, or green New Deals will find enough support to pass intact, but its a tortured argument that relies on what eventually comes out of Congress to define the effectiveness of individual legislators.
Politics works just as Sanders and other progressives practice it. They advvocate a hard as they're able, and that advocacy is (hopefully) reconciled among the dispartate and myriad interests in Congress into action or law. Sen. Sanders just happens to advocate for more than most.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)But then, I did something else which you did not respond to: I compared Bernie's legislative record, whose fate you acknowledge to be identical to any other politician's, to Bernie's rhetoric outside his legislative record. Night and day. So it's obvious on its face that his legislative standing, which you referred to earlier as evidence of him being mainstream, deviates considerably from his rhetoric, which shows him far from being mainstream.
Have you read the Wikipedia entry I linked to?
Please do.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...so not about 'populism' but Sanders' 'rhetoric'.
Most legislators sponsor only a handful that are signed into law. But there are other legislative activities that are also important, including offering amendments, committee work and oversight of the other branches, and constituent services.
But singling out Sanders for his 'rhetoric' is just a political attack. I'm not here for that.
(I'm going to go back to gardening)
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)And how did I single Bernie out? By identifying him as a nominal charismatic leader of a self-described populist party? Anything factually wrong about this?
Mmmm...kay! Happy gardening!
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...so, Bernie's populism = Kim Jong's?
How could I have mistaken that for a nonsense political attack?
Carry on.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)The question is, have you read the Wikipedia article I gave you a link for?
Please do. It will explain a lot. And it may even stop you from making ridiculous accusations.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)It speaks of pure consumerism and the economic interests of the government.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...Teddy Roosevelt populism.
William Jennings Bryant and the birth of progressivism. Not the dumbed-down political attack nonsense that uses populism as shorthand for extreme politics.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)It can be practices by anyone in a position of power or influence, from Kim Jong Un to the Pope.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...which the right has tried to attribute to their demagoguery.
You can't credibly attribute American populism to despotism or fascism in other countries. It's just not analagous, unless you're discounting the rise of progressivism behind populist movements in our nation's past.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)Don't forget to include Trumpism and the Tea Party, televangelism and the pro-gun lobby in your list. These are all part of American politics, they fit the general definition of populism and are very creditably attributable to the American version of it.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...conservative politics may claim to be populist, but they advocate autocracy at so many levels that it's either a joke to describe them that way, or a profound bastardization of the term, it's roots, and as it applies to American politics.
Who's responsible for describing those anti-progressive cons as populism? They're not, no matter who the intellectual or interest that's pushing that misnomer.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)And the 1/6 insurrection was a populist revolt. My whole point is that populism and autocracy fit very well together. All it takes is for a charismatic autocrat to ddefine who "the people" are and who the "enemy of the people" are. This is not claiming to be populist, this is BEING populist. It is the essence of being populist: "the people", as defined by a charismatic leader, vs "the elites" or "enemies of the people", also as defined by the same charismatic leader. American or Hungarian, or Turkish politics, it doesn't matter one bit.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...but it serves nothing to further the nonsense about his politics being populist.
There's no such thing as an autocratic populist, no matter that they or anyone else calls their anti-democratic politics and policy.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)And if you still think there is no such thing as an autocratic populist, please google a simple wikipedia entry on populism.
Ok, I will do it for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Ideational_definition
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...it doesn't make them populist.
How can anyone say, for instance, that the North Korean people approve of Kim Jong's regime? He's a dictator who exposes and practices autocracy and regressive politics and policy.
You can't credibly apply populism to a despised rule. It's just antithetical, on its face, and it's just parroting autocratic nonsense, at best.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)Including Trump.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...now you're telling me I'm not reading, as if I'm just someone who pulled their opinion from the virtual air.
You shifted your argument into an anti-Sanders screed complete with inaccuracies and pure nonsense. This discussion isn't about a word, it's about labeling Sanders' populism as akin to Kim Jong's or something.
Done.
Beastly Boy
(9,060 posts)This discussion, BTW, IS about the definition of populism and how it is being misunderstood. Bernie is completely incidental to it, as an illustration of a charismatic populist leader among many others.
And just to put it in perspective, this is my Kim Jong Un post:
It can be practices by anyone in a position of power or influence, from Kim Jong Un to the Pope.
Could you point out where exactly I suggested that Bernie is akin to Kim?
betsuni
(25,128 posts)Us ("the people" the moral and pure) and Them (elites, establishment, evil, corrupt, enemies). Difference between left-wing and right-wing populism, who's in which category. American right-wing, rich people are included in the Us, left-wing in the Them. For both, the "Democratic establishment/liberals" the Them.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,145 posts)the definition depends on a variety of things (including one's own identity), it relies on some people being "others." As a stand-alone political ideology, it's vague, tricky and poorly defined; as a frame or flavor on other ideologies, it ultimately ends up diluting them.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,145 posts)bigtree
(85,917 posts)...yeah, that's what I said.
Not perjoratively, a compliment. If you disagree, say why.
aocommunalpunch
(4,223 posts)That shouldn't qualify as "taking on." I appreciate the sentiment, but until money is not taken from these rich fucks anymore, we can expect more words and finger-wagging. That generates a 'meh' from me.
bigtree
(85,917 posts)...normally, usually outside of the WH.
Not sure why anyone interested in confronting oil and gas companies for their profit taking wouldn't just applaud this, but advantage their own advocacy behind it.
After all, there's little Pres. Biden can do about gas and oil prices except wag his (jaw), both publicly and privately with oil producing nations.
XacerbatedDem
(511 posts)Bobstandard
(1,279 posts)Biden should do more messaging like this. Lots more.