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

Is Populism a threat to Democracy?

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 is popular, not a populist. I've gotta be honest, I don't think he's ever used a slogan or a catchphrase in his life. Stop confusing the two.
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
You have a real fucking perverse definition of freedom and liberty if you are defending slave holders. You might want to check on how Those proponents of "liberty and freedom" recruited (read: conscripted) for their army.

The following year, when Congress mandated that men who enlisted must sign on for three years or the duration of the conflict, whichever came first, offers of cash and land bounties became an absolute necessity. The states and the army also turned to slick-tongued recruiters to round up volunteers. General Washington had urged conscription, stating that “the Government must have recourse to coercive measures.” In April 1777, Congress recommended a draft to the states. By the end of 1778, most states were conscripting men when Congress’ voluntary enlistment quotas were not met.

In short, fuck your version of "Freedom and Liberty".
 
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 is popular, not a populist. I've gotta be honest, I don't think he's ever used a slogan or a catchphrase in his life. Stop confusing the two.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, self-described democratic socialists, are examples of modern left-wing populist politicians. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez's populist message tend to place the people in opposition to big business and the very wealthy.

 
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 is popular, not a populist. I've gotta be honest, I don't think he's ever used a slogan or a catchphrase in his life. Stop confusing the two.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, self-described democratic socialists, are examples of modern left-wing populist politicians. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez's populist message tend to place the people in opposition to big business and the very wealthy.

Sanders is a populist. Ocasio-Cortez is TBD. She has a ton more savvy than people give her credit for.
 
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.
Yeah, but the thing about persecuted minorities is that they are minorities.

Anyhow, that nitpick is beside the point; My point is that people can be, and often are, remarkably happy despite an almost complete absence of liberty or freedom; And many people cannot be happy without order, structure, and strict enforcement of rules of behaviour.

Freedom and liberty are not only unneeded for, they can be positively detrimental to, people's happiness, as having to make decisions about what to do can be very stressful.
 
Last edited:
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.
I think it's VERY accurate to say that they were happy; I explicitly pointed out that this is despite their not being free, nor 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.
Sure. But for a brief period, while he was victorious and essentially unchallenged in Europe, he and his people were very happy indeed with what he had achieved.

Of course, we all know that it went to shit shortly thereafter, but they didn't and couldn't know that.

One of the prerequisites for happiness is a lack of fear or concern about the future - even if that lack of fear or concern is seriously misplaced.

The Germans of early 1941 were secure in the knowledge that their Führer was sufficiently powerful as to defeat any enemy, and keep real Germans safe from any threat (including internal threats, such as Jewish Germans, who were very definitely not real Germans).

He had just humiliated their oppressors in France, and finally wiped out the shame and ignominy of their defeat in 1918, and he had turned around their economy after the privations of the Great Depression.

That they were terribly and tragically wrong is pure presentism - they didn't (and couldn't possibly) know that the future held further defeat and even worse ignominy and suffering.

And they didn't want to know about the suffering of the many oppressed people within Germany. "It can't possibly be that bad, these people are always complaining, and never seem to be satisfied, and they probably deserve it, after all most of them are criminals. I am a good person, and if they had just been law abiding and decent like I am, they too would be happy and comfortable. Troublemakers and thugs like that deserve whatever they get".

You can still find plenty of boringly middle class people in any prosperous nation today who will say EXACTLY the same things if you confront them with evidence that minorities are being oppressed or abused. It's not happening to them, so it's not happening (or if it is happening, the victims must have brought it upon themselves).

These are the people who voted for Hitler, and Moseley, and Trump.

Fascists mostly aren't jack-booted, violent, or openly cruel; Rather, they are boring, small-minded, and lacking in empathy.

One reason why fascism is resurgent today is that people raised on cartoon villain Nazis in uniforms, strutting across Europe on cinema screens, before being beaten by a plucky All-American leading man*, can't recognise that their polite and church-going middle class neighbour with the neatly mowed yard with a Trump sign in it, is the actual face of fascism (and always was).










*perhaps with a little help from the Brits; Russians? Who are they?
 
Right now, the US has a strong right-wing populist movement and weak left-wing populist movement. Build the wall and America becomes great again. Puhlease!
If our government represented the people properly there would be no left or right wing populism...because the people...would be happy. I blame corruption, ineffective leadership, and too centralized government causing the populism to manifest itself in the first place. Perhaps the goal of government (although not stated) should be to address the needs and wants of the populace so that populism never shows its face.

In a way populism movement reminds me of unions. They shouldn't be needed but they are because management is so bad in the first place.

And to me the fix is obvious although admittedly impossible to accomplish. Just get rid of the corruption.
Because you keep listening to false reasons to supposedly be unhappy.

Populism isn't about the people. It's about pretending to be about the people.
 
Right now, the US has a strong right-wing populist movement and weak left-wing populist movement. Build the wall and America becomes great again. Puhlease!
If our government represented the people properly there would be no left or right wing populism...because the people...would be happy. I blame corruption, ineffective leadership, and too centralized government causing the populism to manifest itself in the first place. Perhaps the goal of government (although not stated) should be to address the needs and wants of the populace so that populism never shows its face.

In a way populism movement reminds me of unions. They shouldn't be needed but they are because management is so bad in the first place.

And to me the fix is obvious although admittedly impossible to accomplish. Just get rid of the corruption.
Because you keep listening to false reasons to supposedly be unhappy.

Populism isn't about the people. It's about pretending to be about the people.
Your math does not add up. When you add the Bernie supporters to the Trump supporters, that's fully 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire population. Lets be conservative and say 40% of the voters are currently populists, either left or right.

Your argument is 40% of people have deluded themselves being unhappy due to false reasoning? And even if all these people were delusional like you believe, why were not the same percentage of people populist in the 1950's and 60's? Populism is not a new movement, its roots have been around since the French Revolution.

Whether liberal or conservative, a populist dictator does not get installed because the people were happy in the first place. They get installed because the current government fails to keep the people happy. The dictators come about because the old democratic government became corrupt and highly incompetent just like the US is today.
 
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.
Democrats embraced populism under Obama? Do you just mean that he was popular? I don't remember any endorsements of populism as a social phenomenon at the time, nor would I see his customary si se puede hetoric as hinging on populist ideas for the most part, at least no more so than any other American politician.
I think, to a conservative, trying to create a public health system is seen as populism, whilst building a wall on the Mexican border is a perfectly sane and politically normal thing to do. You know, to keep all the rapists and murderers out.
 
Why can't the federal government have an election on issues of a border wall, universal healthcare. Simple yes or no questions and if yes has to be implemented within so many years.

I'm tired of the government saying it listens to the people and turns around and says it has no obligation to listen to the people. It is very sovietesque to say one thing and then say another.
 
Why can't the federal government have an election on issues of a border wall, universal healthcare. Simple yes or no questions and if yes has to be implemented within so many years.

I'm tired of the government saying it listens to the people and turns around and says it has no obligation to listen to the people. It is very sovietesque to say one thing and then say another.
"...the government..."

sigh

I really want to meet this "the government" guy one day. He must be related to the "they" guy. I hear a lot about both of them.
 
Why can't the federal government have an election on issues of a border wall, universal healthcare. Simple yes or no questions and if yes has to be implemented within so many years.
Sounds like a referendum is being called for. Do you not have the ability to call referenda?
I'm tired of the government saying it listens to the people and turns around and says it has no obligation to listen to the people. It is very sovietesque to say one thing and then say another.
You could be describing Australia at times.
 
No. There is no way the US government will allow it. State governments can but it is allowed because the politicians know the courts can overturn it.
 
Why can't the federal government have an election on issues of a border wall, universal healthcare. Simple yes or no questions and if yes has to be implemented within so many years.

I'm tired of the government saying it listens to the people and turns around and says it has no obligation to listen to the people. It is very sovietesque to say one thing and then say another.
"...the government..."

sigh

I really want to meet this "the government" guy one day. He must be related to the "they" guy. I hear a lot about both of them.
I assure you sir ""the government" guy" does indeed exist and he delights in thwarting the will of the people.
 
Why can't the federal government have an election on issues of a border wall, universal healthcare. Simple yes or no questions and if yes has to be implemented within so many years.

I'm tired of the government saying it listens to the people and turns around and says it has no obligation to listen to the people. It is very sovietesque to say one thing and then say another.
"...the government..."

sigh

I really want to meet this "the government" guy one day. He must be related to the "they" guy. I hear a lot about both of them.
I assure you sir ""the government" guy" does indeed exist and he delights in thwarting the will of the people.
I always though people were people regardless the positions they held in their societies. Some of those people hold government positions and some don't, Are we talking free societies or we abiding in a dictatorship? Honestly, the negativism and bogeymanism some people project must be a reflection or projection of their out-of-control internal demons. Shit happens. That's natural selection. Rise above all the negativism FFS else you become the very thing you apparently despise.
 
Because you keep listening to false reasons to supposedly be unhappy.

Populism isn't about the people. It's about pretending to be about the people.
Your math does not add up. When you add the Bernie supporters to the Trump supporters, that's fully 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire population. Lets be conservative and say 40% of the voters are currently populists, either left or right.

Your argument is 40% of people have deluded themselves being unhappy due to false reasoning? And even if all these people were delusional like you believe, why were not the same percentage of people populist in the 1950's and 60's? Populism is not a new movement, its roots have been around since the French Revolution.

Whether liberal or conservative, a populist dictator does not get installed because the people were happy in the first place. They get installed because the current government fails to keep the people happy. The dictators come about because the old democratic government became corrupt and highly incompetent just like the US is today.
The fundamental issue is that there are a bunch of people unhappy because Moscow and Beijing keep telling them that they're suffering because of the Democrats. Not because they actually are suffering due to the Democrats. It's the standard path of radicalization--find some actual issue (in this case, it's actually how machinery is taking over a lot of what used to be high skill manual labor jobs), keep telling the people it's because of some group. That doesn't mean said group actually has anything to do with it.

The international nature of the internet has made this a much bigger issue than it used to be.
 
The problem is obsession with greed and human arrogance and ignorance. Don't need to be a "populist" (whatever that means, seems like another boogeyman word like "communist") to point that out.
 
Why can't the federal government have an election on issues of a border wall, universal healthcare. Simple yes or no questions and if yes has to be implemented within so many years.
Sounds like a referendum is being called for. Do you not have the ability to call referenda?
Some states do. There is no national process.

And note that most referenda are garbage because they're either done by people who don't understand how things actually work or done with malign intent. (Consider a recent local one--the intent was universal background checks for firearm purchases. But it went way overboard on defining the situations that required a check, resulting in a measure whose concept polled around 90% actually only getting a hair over 50% of the vote; and it didn't consider how things worked. The FBI told us that the old procedures were better, fuck off. They were right, the check the referendum mandated was a subset of the existing system.)
 
Because you keep listening to false reasons to supposedly be unhappy.

Populism isn't about the people. It's about pretending to be about the people.
Your math does not add up. When you add the Bernie supporters to the Trump supporters, that's fully 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire population. Lets be conservative and say 40% of the voters are currently populists, either left or right.

Your argument is 40% of people have deluded themselves being unhappy due to false reasoning? And even if all these people were delusional like you believe, why were not the same percentage of people populist in the 1950's and 60's? Populism is not a new movement, its roots have been around since the French Revolution.

Whether liberal or conservative, a populist dictator does not get installed because the people were happy in the first place. They get installed because the current government fails to keep the people happy. The dictators come about because the old democratic government became corrupt and highly incompetent just like the US is today.
The fundamental issue is that there are a bunch of people unhappy because Moscow and Beijing keep telling them that they're suffering because of the Democrats.
I was almost on board until you said Democrats. Its not the Democrats they are (directly) unhappy with. Its the monopolization of money and government and the resultant corruption between the two. The Bernie supporters are just as angry with the Banking and corporation monopolies as the Trump supporters are with the "deep state". But those are not exactly the same people. It could also be true most of the "deep state" are government bureaucratic employees installed in lifetime jobs who generally vote Democrat, but again..... that's not automatically something you can assume.

I do agree with you that media in the US is horrible right now and that China and Moscow may be influencing a great deal of public opinion. That being said, the monopolization of money and government is real and represents the real threat to the growing influence of populism in the US. And the people of the populist movement are not wrong or deluded about that despite listening to shit media.

Get rid of money influencing government, corruption, and the "deep state" and you get rid of populism.
 
Last edited:
Because you keep listening to false reasons to supposedly be unhappy.

Populism isn't about the people. It's about pretending to be about the people.
Your math does not add up. When you add the Bernie supporters to the Trump supporters, that's fully 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire population. Lets be conservative and say 40% of the voters are currently populists, either left or right.

Your argument is 40% of people have deluded themselves being unhappy due to false reasoning? And even if all these people were delusional like you believe, why were not the same percentage of people populist in the 1950's and 60's? Populism is not a new movement, its roots have been around since the French Revolution.

Whether liberal or conservative, a populist dictator does not get installed because the people were happy in the first place. They get installed because the current government fails to keep the people happy. The dictators come about because the old democratic government became corrupt and highly incompetent just like the US is today.

Obviously I take the side of Loren Pechtel in this debate.

But first, I wonder if "populism" has even been defined. "Populism" should not be viewed as a single political ideology; it's more of an approach to politics.

. . . corrupt and highly incompetent just like the US is today.
Wow! I'm rather critical of U.S. governance myself, blaming the incompetence as partly due to extreme partisanship, but if I give the U.S. government a rating of only 7½ on a scale of 1 to 10, RVonse ranks it at negative 5 or so! RVonse? Are you ready to embrace a "populist" takeover?

Several days ago, I suggested that "readiness to embrace fascism" (and exploitation of that readiness by would-be authoritarians) is a good working definition of modern "populism." It is no coincidence that Hitler came to power at the time of, and due to, widespread radio broadcasting, Today it is FoxTV and social media like Facebook and Xwitter that are propelling us toward fascism.

I do realize that "Libertarians" strongly oppose the fascist goals we see in today's GOP. But Democratic politicians are doing a fair job of keeping the ship of state functioning and on-course in the parts of government where they have influence. Rants about "corruption" and "war-mongering" from the "Libertarians" are NOT the way to protect our fragile democracy from the growing threat of right-wing fascism.
 
Back
Top Bottom