Is Populism a threat to Democracy?

[RVonse]

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.

If you look at the actual results at how the US government actually represents the people in terms of opportunity and measures of the gini coefficient I would rate our federal government as about 2 out of 10. Our government has been highly ineffective when it comes to educating the most amount of people for the least amount of money. It has been highly ineffective keeping the most amount of people healthy for the least amount of money. And it has been highly ineffective reducing wealth inequality to levels compatible with a stable middle class. We have an abundance of poor people with no education in a country with no possible upward path for them.

How you can rate our federal government a 7-1/2 right now is beyond my wildest imagination! That is like giving someone who weighs 400 lbs the silver medal for weight loss. You do not fix anything unless you recognize a problem, get bothered by it, and DO something about it.

And no, I'm not a supporter of populism. I'm a supporter of being bothered by it so a dictator is not installed in the near future.

 

[RVonse]

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.

Not being bothered about "war-mongering" and corruption is worse. The people are already unhappy. Its worse because you are still burning your hand in the sink with the hot water being turned on and doing absolutely nothing to turn the other faucet colder while your skin is blistering.

Stop voting for the neo liberals and neo cons from either party.

 

[Swammerdami]

If you look at the actual results at how the US government actually represents the people in terms of opportunity and measures of the gini coefficient I would rate our federal government as about 2 out of 10.

Most of your complaints seem to apply to GOP policies, and NOT Democratic policies. (Let alone "the gummint" boogey-man.)
Taxation policies are a big reason for rising inequality. Have you noticed a Red vs Blue divide on tax policies?

Our government has been highly ineffective when it comes to educating the most amount of people for the least amount of money.

Again: It is specifically the GOP which adopts policies deliberately designed to degrade public schools. Are Democratic policies perfect? Definitely not, but the Red/Blue divide is so huge that lumping the two Parties together is . . . absurd.

It has been highly ineffective keeping the most amount of people healthy for the least amount of money.

The U.S. has painted itself into a corner with ill-advised approaches to medical financing. The Blues tried for improvement with Obamacare, but never had the 60 Senators they needed for a "single-payer" plan. (Of course I don't count Lieberman, the Insurance pimp who sabotaged Obamacare.)

BTW, contrary to right-wing propaganda the Veterans Health Administration -- operated by the U.S. Government -- offers excellent medical care for modest cost. It could serve as a model. But GOP whores scream in mock horror whenever anyone says anything good about it.

And

Red vs Blue. Red vs Blue. Don't you see a pattern?

it has been highly ineffective reducing wealth inequality to levels compatible with a stable middle class. We have an abundance of poor people with no education in a country with no possible upward path for them.

Yes, but what are the solutions? Build a wall? High tariffs?? Trade dollars in for Bitcoins??? Abandon Ukraine to Putin's band of fascists???? There are no silver bullets, but the first step is to crush the Republican Party.

 

[bilby]

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

Those who do, sought out power for themselves.

I suspect that this identifies them as a dangerous minority, who are quite unlike most humans in at least that critical way, and who should at the very least be distrusted.

The solution to protecting humans against power seekers is to distribute power, such that no one person can acquire very much of it.

So far, attempts to do this have been patchy at best; While we still have people who are sufficiently powerful and sufficiently power hungry as to be interviewed by (or asked for an interview by) the media at least once a week, we remain in danger from these freaks.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

This is a good way to look at it. I've noticed that most populists are like weathervanes, they swing about about all the time. They will hop on the next train that they think is most popular (hence the term populism) and which will get them noticed. They really lack any convictions except to look after numero uno. I daresay US, UK, Aust. are very similar in this.

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 Fox TV and social media like Facebook and Xwitter that are propelling us toward fascism.

Populists as I noted earlier have no real convictions. They will embrace fascism, communism and anything in between if it will serve numero uno. They are really quite catholic (not the church) in their outlook. They are unstable and unreliable and not good bedfellows nor fellow travellers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

The populists on the left are a fairly small group.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Fundamentally, politicians have to appeal to both those who fund them and those who vote for them.

A politician who actually will act populist will not get the funding and almost certainly won't go anywhere. Anyone who takes money from big donors is not a truly a populist no matter what they say they are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you look at the actual results at how the US government actually represents the people in terms of opportunity and measures of the gini coefficient I would rate our federal government as about 2 out of 10. Our government has been highly ineffective when it comes to educating the most amount of people for the least amount of money. It has been highly ineffective keeping the most amount of people healthy for the least amount of money. And it has been highly ineffective reducing wealth inequality to levels compatible with a stable middle class. We have an abundance of poor people with no education in a country with no possible upward path for them.

How you can rate our federal government a 7-1/2 right now is beyond my wildest imagination! That is like giving someone who weighs 400 lbs the silver medal for weight loss. You do not fix anything unless you recognize a problem, get bothered by it, and DO something about it.

And no, I'm not a supporter of populism. I'm a supporter of being bothered by it so a dictator is not installed in the near future.

Can you name any country to the right of us that does better?

And what has the Turd even tried to do that would improve things?

I'm not aware of any specifics from him on education, the general Republican approach is to destroy the public education system and thus leave the poor uneducated, ensuring there's no path up for them. He kept promising a better health plan but nothing was proposed and he did as much damage as he could get away with to the existing system. And the Turd was all about increasing wealth inequality.

How can you think he's superior to Biden?? He's the embodiment of everything you say is wrong.

 

[Swammerdami]

... the general Republican approach is to destroy the public education system and thus leave the poor uneducated, ensuring there's no path up for them.

It sounds almost like conspiracy theory to suggest that the GOP actively tries to keep the under-class uneducated and with poor cognitive skills. BUT, how else can one explain the persistent refusal of many GOP Congresscritters to provide adequate funding for Head Start? Head Start is a relatively inexpensive program with major benefits:

Research has shown that children who participate in Head Start programs experience positive impacts on their cognitive, social, and emotional development that can extend into adulthood.

 

[BH]

The Republicans have mastered the art of cognitive framing. You create a policy that only benefits your elite few wealthy people, sell it to the regular public in a way that appeals to their values (even though the new law or policy is the exact opposite) and the poor voters will fall for it and vote the way they want.

 

[BH]

I forgot to ad that due to the psychology of people who are authoritarian and or conservative it is easier to organize and get such people to act. People fear change, don't question authority and do what they are told, ect. Liberals, Socialists, Democrats, civil rights fadvicates, libertarians ( real ones not fake like the political party of the name) bicker and fight over ideas and what should be done. It's hard for someone to sit them down and make them work together.

 

[RVonse]

Can you name any country to the right of us that does better?

Singapore.

 

[bilby]

Can you name any country to the right of us that does better?

Singapore.

Singapore is a city.

It's also a country, of course; But when your entire country is one city and basically nothing else, a lot of problems go away.

 

[jonatha]

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.

One of the counterarguments to term limits is that if Joe Representative is going to be turfed out regardless it's even more to his advantage than it is now to cater to the highest bidder...

 

[Swammerdami]

Can you name any country to the right of us that does better?

Singapore.

Singapore is a city.

It's also a country, of course; But when your entire cany, noountry is one city and basically nothing else, a lot of problems go away.

The rural/urban divide is a major reason for U.S. political dysfunction. Even in bright-Red states like Nebraska and Indiana, the largest cities -- Omaha and Indianapolis -- vote Blue.

Am I wrong that in a country like Germany nobody lives too far from a cosmopolitan center?

 

[bilby]

Can you name any country to the right of us that does better?

Singapore.

Singapore is a city.

It's also a country, of course; But when your entire cany, noountry is one city and basically nothing else, a lot of problems go away.

The rural/urban divide is a major reason for U.S. political dysfunction. Even in bright-Red states like Nebraska and Indiana, the largest cities -- Omaha and Indianapolis -- vote Blue.

Am I wrong that in a country like Germany nobody lives too far from a cosmopolitan center?

Depends what you mean by "nobody", "far", and "cosmopolitan"

In the USA, "nobody" lives far from a city. Unless by "nobody", you mean nobody; In which case there are plenty of rural dwellers in Germany too...

 

[Tigers!]

Can you name any country to the right of us that does better?

Singapore.

Singapore is a city.

It's also a country, of course; But when your entire country is one city and basically nothing else, a lot of problems go away.

Despite all of that Singapore is still doing better than the USA in so many ways

 

[bilby]

Can you name any country to the right of us that does better?

Singapore.

Singapore is a city.

It's also a country, of course; But when your entire country is one city and basically nothing else, a lot of problems go away.

Despite all of that Singapore is still doing better than the USA in so many ways

And worse in so many other ways.

It's basically just pure opinion, which city/country/state/etc. is "best"*.



* Unless you're discussing Queensland, which is objectively better than anywhere else, obviously.

 

[jonatha]

Unless you're discussing Queensland, which is objectively better than anywhere else, obviously

It's the bus service....

 

[Tigers!]

Unless you're discussing Queensland, which is objectively better than anywhere else, obviously

It's the bus service....

Ah yes. Qld buses Brisbane Metro buses