Trump, European populists are a threat to human rights: Human Rights Watch

[highplainsdem]

Source: Reuters

The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States and the rise of populist leaders in Europe poses a "profound threat" to human rights, U.S.-based Human Rights Watch warned on Thursday in its annual global report.

The 687-page report reviews human rights practices in more than 90 countries.

"Trump and various politicians in Europe seek power through appeals to racism, xenophobia, misogyny and nativism," Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said. "The rise of populism poses a profound threat to human rights."

"They all claim that the public accepts violations of human rights as supposedly necessary to secure jobs, avoid cultural change or prevent terrorist attacks. In fact, disregard for human rights offers the likeliest route to tyranny," he said.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-humanrights-report-usa-idUSKBN14W242

[tenorly]

1. They mean 'European right-wingers'

'Populist' is far too broad a brush, as it usually refers to social democrats opposed to austerity and trickle-down policies as well as racism in general (think Greece's Syriza, Spain's Podemos, Argentina's Kirchnerists, and, of course, Bernie right here in the U.S.).

[JHan]

2. Populism is just the method..

The playbook is essentially the same, regardless the ideology - bad things must be destroyed and the populist decides who and what the bad things are, and which bad things should be prioritized. And always with populists the focus is on them, and what THEY can do and Trump has always ever made it about HIM and HIS movement. More agile and skilled politicians temper their populism without being politically destructive - President Obama is an example of this.

[tenorly]

3. Neocons have been cleverly confusing 'populism' with demogoguery in order to attack it.

Populists are above all opposed to elitism - be it economic elitism (austerity for the many, obscene privilege for a few) or racism (particularly the idea that fair skin entitles someone, whereas dark skin makes that person 'undesirable').

Neocons, needless to say, are all about that.

Trump and people like France's Le Pen are very much demagogues - but by definition, not populist (least of all Trump, with his Reaganomics-on-steroids program).

[JHan]

4. Sometimes the Elite is guilty of that..

"Elitism" and need a kick up the A, however last year saw a vicious attack on the establishment across the board - in the incumbent year of a Democratic presidency, where the President, for the most part, tried his best to stay true to some progressive principles during his tenure despite not having the support in numbers in Congress.

Populists will always attack "the establishment" regardless. When Obama ran on "change" in 08, his message wasn't destructive but inspiring. The populist message last year was based on anger, with very little to temper it. The talk about " shaking things up" because the Establishment was so awful saw the rise of Trump who will now empty D.C of all the people with expertise and smarts who made up that establishment. It's my personal view that populism has to *be reined in to be effective.

The only thing that doesn't gel with me is that the voting numbers don't support the narrative that there was some groundswell support for Trump's populism. Voter Suppression may have had something to do with it but turn out was 58% ( I could be off 1 or 2 points). Lots of people either stayed home or didn't care.

EDIT: It was really interesting that last year so much the year of Hamilton, even he saw the pitfalls:

""Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement and banishment by acts of legislature. The dangerous consequences of this power are manifest. If the legislature can disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partizans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense"

[tenorly]

5. True. Populists can be a challenge to the establishment - if the establishment is being abusive.

Trump, on the other hand, would turn our already unresponsive government into a massive device for trickle-up tax policy and authoritarian imposition. This impetus would suit him perfectly on a personal level, moreover, as he is so abusive himself.

And you're absolutely right: Hillary was the popular choice - not Trump. What shocks people in other countries the most, from what I've heard, is that the candidate with 3 million more votes "lost." Had voting been compulsory (as it is in many other democracies), her margin of victory would have no doubt been 10 million or more.

[JHan]

7. Yep, it's a shock to other democracies..

I don't mind the idea that the candidates have to appeal to the electorate in each state, but the electoral votes are so unevenly distributed.

"Trump, on the other hand, would turn our already unresponsive government into a massive device for trickle-up tax policy and authoritarian imposition. This impetus would suit him perfectly on a personal level, moreover, as he is so abusive himself. "

Agreed. It's going to be rough. He has all the power he needs - SCOTUS pick, congress. People are going to have to be active and pushy and not wait for politicians to show them how to be civic minded. Raising a fuss about the ethics committee was just a start.

[tenorly]

8. Absolutely. The Electoral College is undemocratic - and what's more, it was designed to be.

Our democracy will always be at risk as long as the E.C. elects our Presidents. Trump is the very epitome of this problem.

[wordpix]

6. why is Human Rights Watch referring to the rise of RWnuts "populism"? "Fascism" is more like it

Call it that or dictatorship

[tenorly]

9. We were just discussing the very thing with JHan.

There's been, on the part of big media, a deliberate campaign to redefine populism as "fascism."

Except for some of his protectionist utterances (which can't be taken seriously at all, given his own record of outsourcing), Trump's policies don't have anything populist about them. They're Reaganomics on steroids, just as extreme if not more than Dubya's depression-inducing financial free-for-all.