• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Is Populism a threat to Democracy?

Is Populism a threat to Democracy?​

In this post I summarize the important part of the answer to this question.
To summarize the summary, a strong populism is likely to be subverted into fascism and thus is very bad. This problem was exacerbated, first by radio broadcasting, then by social media. Pro-Green populism is often relatively benign, but otherwise can anyone cite any examples of "good" populism since the turn of the century?

The word "Fascism" is ambiguous. (Is there a thread discussing the definition?) A look at Madeleine A's book gave me insight. I say with confidence that populism is the prerequisite precursor for fascism. A country might be taken over by populist politics without becoming also fascist, but never vice-versa. And a strong populist political movement is easy to warp into a fascist model. Briefly, a fascist takeover begins with popular ideas and policies, ideas with general appeal, to rich, poor, political left and right. Intellectuals and altruistic leaders will often oppose ill-advised populist agenda, but some leaders will be corrupted.

In today's U.S. clime, most of the GOP leaders have been corrupted into supporting Trump's fascism. The threat is much more dire than many understand.

There are "legitimate" issues where sincere Populists think they speak for liberal values. I show gasoline pricing as an example.
Thinkers mostly agree that higher gasoline prices would be beneficial* for society in several ways (and should have been imposed decades ago). In a "smart populism" model where the people are smart, they'd say greenishly, "Dear Congressman, Stop listening to the Oil Industry lobbyists. Hike up the price of gas please."

In practice the unwashed or uninformed masses would probably oppose higher gasoline prices. All else equal the opinions of altruistic experts is preferred over the ignorati. *-Putin and MBS are already colluding to throttle oil production for Trump's political advantage in the late summer. Higher prices in the short term would be very bad.

So what turns populism derived directly from ordinary human ignorance into the malevolent governing model called fascism? Populism, by its very nature, can be easily enhanced and exploited by con-men. As a trivial example, 40% of Brits wanted, stupidly, to exit from EU. Con-men pushed that up to 51% and got the reward of deregulation. But that is NOT fascism. The con-men sought and achieved one specific change. In fascism the con-man doesn't just want a single new law -- he takes over the entire government!
Since only ~66% of the eligible population bothered to vote during Brexit it is not correct to say 40% of Brits wanted it. We will never know exactly how many Brits wanted Brexit.
No sense laying out a blueprint for fascist takeover. An obvious ploy is . . .
Is there someone to blame? Desire for increased income is common. Voters who blame their poor financial situation on immigrants or politicians will be prey to a con-man pandering fears and hatreds. In extreme cases (Hitler's lies, contrails, vaccines and space lasers) new fears and hatreds are created and stirred up.

The playbooks of Mussolini, Hitler and Trump are all similar in this model. I've read a claim that Trump read Mein Kampf or otherwise regarded Hitler as a mentor. Is this true?
One's man populism threat is another's legitimate grievance
 
People are never happy.
In my lifetime, they have never been more unhappy. Especially since the 2008 occupy Wall Street movement.
The 60s and 70s?
The 60's and 70's were no comparison.

Never during that time were there discussions of succession or civil war 2 like behavior we observe all the time today. Back then there were generally peaceful transitions of power nor any efforts to interfere with elections.
 
If our government represented the people properly there would be no left or right wing populism...because the people...would be happy.
That's both hilarious and sad.

Happiness has nothing whatsoever to do with government, and vice-versa.

Government can determine prosperity, but there's a major kicker that most people are utterly oblivious to, and which (once you truly understand it) can change your entire life: While poverty can certainly make you unhappy, wealth cannot make you happy, and the pursuit of wealth is often a disastrous strategy in the pursuit of happiness.
Happiness has everything to do with government. People like freedom and liberty. And the founders of the US were willing to die for it.
 

Happiness has nothing whatsoever to do with government, and vice-versa.
It is unfortunate that so many people around the world think it is the government's job to make them happy and solve all their problems.
It is not the governments job to make anyone happy. But it is the governments job to make sure everyone has equal opportunity and make sure the laws are fair for everyone.

The populism that developed during the banking bailouts did not happen because of poverty. They happened because those people were not getting government bailouts while the rich CEOs were.
 
People are never happy.
In my lifetime, they have never been more unhappy. Especially since the 2008 occupy Wall Street movement.
The 60s and 70s?
The 60's and 70's were no comparison.

Never during that time were there discussions of succession or civil war 2 like behavior we observe all the time today. Back then there were generally peaceful transitions of power nor any efforts to interfere with elections.
So like the assassinations and all were nothing. You know, like murders, big, high stakes murders. Actual terrorism, even domestic.

But things are worse now because a bunch of people wanna pretend a Civil War is brewing, when the reality is, our nation is in no state to be able to wage a war as such. Heck, the militants on the right-wing would be killing each other after a couple months, after the shit ditches had filled up.

But back to the 60's and 70's... people were quite angry back then. At least then, there were reasons. Today people are angry because... Murdoch told them to be.
 
It definitely is a threat in India. Promises, which will destroy a country's economy.
Some offering a million USD to every woman, farmer, laborer, if they win the election.
We are currently going through it.
 
As if Pelosi is not a populist.
She is just mad that someone is better at that shit than her.
 
Happiness has everything to do with government. People like freedom and liberty. And the founders of the US were willing to die for it.
Hitler's Germans come to mind.
Hitlers Germans were extremely happy with their government, until the middle of 1941.

They had become prosperous and motivated, they had won the war, and they had every reason to expect the last little details of their foreign policy to be quickly tidied up. France was completely defeated, Italy and Spain were friendly, they had a non-agression pact with Soviet Russia, Switzerland, Sweden, and the United States were all firmly committed to neutrality, Japan was supporting them in the Far East and the Pacific, and the British Empire was militarily weak, and would likely be unable to prosecute any serious attacks on German interests, even if it was foolish enough not to sue for peace.

By May of 1941, the Germans had gone from being a crushed and defeated Great War loser, and an economically devastated victim of the worst of the Great Depression, into a modern high-tech collosus, whose military rivals had all been soundly defeated, or effectively neutralised as a threat.

Simply by doing nothing but consolidate her gains, enjoy the spoils of victory, and make diplomatic overtures (and in the case of Mussolini, demands and threats) to keep Japan and Italy from rocking the boat, and to keep the USSR and US neutral, Germany could have been poised to rule mainland Europe from the Atlantic to the border with the Soviets in the former Poland for the thousand years they boasted about.

They had secured Russian cooperation to avoid a two front war, had gambled with an ever escalating series of provocations against France and England on a massive build up of strength, and had achieved a stunning and crushing victory over both those countries that left them practically unassailable.

It was an almost total victory. And just a few years of consolidation, assimilation of the occupied territory, and rebuilding and remodernising their army in light of the experience gained when fighting in France, could have made them an invincible world power.

Germany won the second Great European War, 1939-40. And then threw it all away on an insane decision to immediately attack their Soviet ally, rather than spend a couple of years getting ready (which had been the key to their victory over France).

The upshot, as we all know, was defeat and misery for Germany and Germans, just four years later, as they decisively lost the third European Great War, 1941-45.

Those two wars were so close together in time, (and the third war was so closely coupled with wars in the Pacific, South East Asia, and Scandinavia), that they tend to be lumped into a single entity we call World War II. But really, Germany won their war; And then threw their victory onto the fire, for no sane reason. Such is the peril of giving a madman dictatorial power.

Happiness was endemic in Germany in late 1940 and early 1941. Freedom and liberty? Not so much.

And, of course, by 1945 few Germans remembered how joyful and cheerful they had been, and even fewer were game to admit to it out loud.
 
Nancy Pelosi offers the compelling 10 minute argument that modern populism has become a threat to democracy here:



But Winston counters her argument here:


While I do believe Pelosi has the correct stance regarding the negative uses of populism especially by a con artists, it is the corruption of Congress and Washington that has allowed populism to show up in the first place. If ruling elites in Washington were doing their job, the majority of the populace would be representative in the first place and there would be no reason for a populism movement either liberal or conservative.

I think it is very fitting that one of the most corrupt politicians I can think of (Pelosi and her insider trading) is the one arguing against the populist movement. And it is also very interesting that the liberals (lead by Pelosi) have shifted over time (since Obama was president) whether a populist is a good person or not. According to liberals a populist is now a deplorable person.

These people may gather in Washington, but they come from the states, so that is where their corrupt nature initially arises. However, it is probably magnified by being in Washington, associating with fellow corrupt politicians. You are correct that the solution needs to start in Washington (but also at state and local levels), not ignoring that a major part of the problem is the influence of mega-corporations and specific wealthy individuals. Also, politicians have a different view of what their role is to that of normal people.
 
politicians have a different view of what their role is to that of normal people.
Every employed person has a different view of what their role is to that of people who have never done that job.

Politicians aren't exceptional in this regard, and any failure lies with lay expectations and myths about what politicians do (or should do), not with the politicians who are just doing their actual jobs.
 
Holy fuck, I just realised who the guy in RVonse's video is! He's the singer from that band that played that little lion man song. Sorry, I like Taylor Swift better, I'll listen to her instead.
 
People like freedom and liberty. And the founders of the US were willing to die for it.
Seeing as it is painfully obvious you get your "history" from statues and the names of public schools, let me tell you a dirty little secret. Whilst Thomas Jefferson was routinely raping the slaves that he owned, the British were offering liberty and freedom to any African American that was willing to fight for them.


The populism that developed during the banking bailouts did not happen because of poverty. They happened because those people were not getting government bailouts while the rich CEOs were.

No, the populism was founded by people like the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family astrotrufing the living fuck out of it. People who are literally orders of magnitudes more wealthy and influential than Soros could ever possibly be incidentally. Those same gullible rube then voted for a guy who gave the elite another bailout via tax cuts. Arguing populism works is a self report that one is quite gullible and easilly manipulated.
 
Happiness was endemic in Germany in late 1940 and early 1941. Freedom and liberty? Not so much.
That 100% depended on who you were in Germany at the time. Certainly if you were Jewish or a person of one of the "mongrel races" you weren't so happy. I don't think it is accurate to say that those select Germans who cooperated with Hitler's regime were happy or free or enjoying liberty. Hitler's was the classic case of using democracy to destroy democracy. Those persons who supported Hitler may or may not have known in hindsight that they were supporting the destruction of German democracy. Many, perhaps most, didn't know their behavior was leading directly to the extermination of six million Jewish men women and children, three million members of those "mongrel races," and fifty million human lives across the globe. And of course that's the point. People like a Hitler or an Orange don't come to power unless someone puts them their. Hitler never won a popular vote in his entire life but he was able to cause massive destruction across the globe and squander countless resources toward that end. It's all the little Hitlers, all the little brown shirts, that are the problem. By himself Hitler doesn't amount to a spit in the ocean.
 

No, the populism was founded by people like the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family astrotrufing the living fuck out of it. People who are literally orders of magnitudes more wealthy and influential than Soros could ever possibly be incidentally. Those same gullible rube then voted for a guy who gave the elite another bailout via tax cuts. Arguing populism works is a self report that one is quite gullible and easilly manipulated.
Are you claiming Bernie Sanders was receiving his funding from the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family? I did not know that. Bernie Sanders was heavily involved with the liberal populists movement right after the 2008 banking crises but I did not know he was funded by conservatives.

You are also gravely wrong about Bernie giving a vote for "a guy who gave the elite another bailout" ....unless you are talking about him voting for Hilary or Obama somehow.
 

The populism that developed during the banking bailouts did not happen because of poverty. They happened because those people were not getting government bailouts while the rich CEOs were.

No, the populism was founded by people like the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family astrotrufing the living fuck out of it. People who are literally orders of magnitudes more wealthy and influential than Soros could ever possibly be incidentally. Those same gullible rube then voted for a guy who gave the elite another bailout via tax cuts. Arguing populism works is a self report that one is quite gullible and easilly manipulated.
Are you claiming Bernie Sanders was receiving his funding from the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family? I did not know that. Bernie Sanders was heavily involved with the liberal populists movement right after the 2008 banking crises but I did not know he was funded by conservatives.

You are also gravely wrong about Bernie giving a vote for "a guy who gave the elite another bailout" ....unless you are talking about him voting for Hilary or Obama somehow.
 
People like freedom and liberty. And the founders of the US were willing to die for it.
Seeing as it is painfully obvious you get your "history" from statues and the names of public schools, let me tell you a dirty little secret. Whilst Thomas Jefferson was routinely raping the slaves that he owned, the British were offering liberty and freedom to any African American that was willing to fight for them.
The Revolutionary War was fought for America's independence from the British. For freedom and liberty. That's why they call they call our founding document the "Declaration of Independence".

Maybe there were slaves or others mistreated during the war; I wasn't there so I can't say. But the war itself was about freedom and liberty. From the British and their King.
 

No, the populism was founded by people like the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family astrotrufing the living fuck out of it. People who are literally orders of magnitudes more wealthy and influential than Soros could ever possibly be incidentally. Those same gullible rube then voted for a guy who gave the elite another bailout via tax cuts. Arguing populism works is a self report that one is quite gullible and easilly manipulated.
Are you claiming Bernie Sanders was receiving his funding from the Koch brothers and the Mercer Family? I did not know that. Bernie Sanders was heavily involved with the liberal populists movement right after the 2008 banking crises but I did not know he was funded by conservatives.

You are also gravely wrong about Bernie giving a vote for "a guy who gave the elite another bailout" ....unless you are talking about him voting for Hilary or Obama somehow.
Sanders, the William Jennings Bryan of our time. I did vote for him though in the primary (post it mattering). He is an example of left-wing populist with no plan.
 
These people may gather in Washington, but they come from the states, so that is where their corrupt nature initially arises. However, it is probably magnified by being in Washington, associating with fellow corrupt politicians.
I think it is also magnified by not having term limits. The counter argument to term limits has always been that new faces aren't experienced enough to do the job.

But at this point in time, there is so much corruption as to surely better to get rid of that than for any advantage of experience.
 
People like freedom and liberty. And the founders of the US were willing to die for it.
Seeing as it is painfully obvious you get your "history" from statues and the names of public schools, let me tell you a dirty little secret. Whilst Thomas Jefferson was routinely raping the slaves that he owned, the British were offering liberty and freedom to any African American that was willing to fight for them.
The Revolutionary War was fought for America's independence from the British. For freedom and liberty. That's why they call they call our founding document the "Declaration of Independence".

Maybe there were slaves or others mistreated during the war; I wasn't there so I can't say. But the war itself was about freedom and liberty. From the British and their King.
It was certainly fought for freedom and liberty. It was primarily fought, however, for freedom and liberty in the pursuit of personal wealth. Jefferson simply changed "Life, liberty and the pursuit of wealth" into "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wealth sounded kind of selfish but that's what the businessmen who founded the country were primarily after. Nothing wrong with that, of course, so long as it isn't the only principle that gets attention.

And why are you being coy? Of course there were slaves. Language had to be deleted from our founding documents or the southern slave owners would not sign on. Maybe you or i would have done the same thing being a product of our times. There was much mistreatment during the war. Please educate yourself beyond nationalist needs.
 
Back
Top Bottom