Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Like CC said, it happens on both sides.

Harris' campaign has been portraying Trump as a threat to democracy. To state that the United States is a democracy suggest that the minority are completely unprotected from the will of the majority. We are a democratic republic for that very reason.

In most Muslim-majority countries, the LGBT community would get the death penalty.

"Most Muslim-majority countries have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights and recognition at the United Nations (UN), including within the UN General Assembly and the UN Human Rights Council."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_people_and_Islam

If we were truly a democracy, Hillary would have been president.

Quote:To state that the United States is a democracy suggest that the minority are completely unprotected from the will of the majority. We are a democratic republic for that very reason.

And yet that is precisely what rightwing populism supports. As stated already:

"Consequently, populists assert the boundless sovereignty of the people, which must be expressed through unlimited referendums, and the intrinsic superiority of direct democracy over what they consider to be outdated forms of liberal and representative democracy."

Quote:In most Muslim-majority countries, the LGBT community would get the death penalty.

I seriously doubt America is in danger of becoming a Muslim theocracy any time soon.

(Sep 13, 2024 03:33 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:To state that the United States is a democracy suggest that the minority are completely unprotected from the will of the majority. We are a democratic republic for that very reason.

And yet that is precisely what rightwing populism supports. As stated already:

"Consequently, populists assert the boundless sovereignty of the people, which must be expressed through unlimited referendums, and the intrinsic superiority of direct democracy over what they consider to be outdated forms of liberal and representative democracy."

And yet that is precisely what leftwing populism supports.

"Its rhetoric often includes elements of anti-elitism, opposition to the Establishment, and speaking for the "common people". Recurring themes for left-wing populists include economic democracy, social justice, and skepticism of globalization."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_populism

Redistribution is a form of coercion, isn’t it? To use someone for the sake of the general welfare is wrong because it calls into question the fundamental right that we own ourselves. Nozick and Locke say, that if society can go to Jeff Bezos and tax away a portion of his wealth, what society is really asserting is a collective property right in Jeff Bezos’ labor, but that violates the fundamental principle that we belong to ourselves.

Our constitution limits the scope of what decisions can be made democratically. It protects our fundamental rights, e.g., freedom of speech, religious liberty, etc.

These individual rights protect us from what the majority want.

In many cases, the term "populist" can be used as a broad brush to describe various political figures or movements, sometimes in a derogatory manner, especially when their ideas or actions challenge established norms or institutions. The key is to look at the specifics of each case rather than applying the label indiscriminately.

Equity of outcome emphasizes a stark divide between the "haves" and "have-nots" and presents equity of outcome as a cure-all for social problems. Same with taxing the rich (unrealized capital gains), Occupy Wall Street, some might even deem BLM protest activity "populist" considering the violence, looting and property damage that took place.

Populism often involves challenging the established political or economic elites, positioning the populist leader or movement as a champion of the common people against a corrupt or out-of-touch elite.

Trump is doing that with "Drain the Swamp".

But corruption is indeed a significant issue and can undermine trust in institutions, hinder economic development, and perpetuate inequality. Addressing corruption effectively often requires a multifaceted approach that includes institutional reform, transparency measures, and public accountability.

Leftwing populism is very rare. When you have to mention protests and riots like Occupy Wallstreet and BLM as possible examples of such a political movement I see you have no real examples. From my article:

"There are fewer populists on the Left end of the spectrum than there are on the Right. Spain is the only country where a Left-wing populist party is in power, as part of a coalition."

OTOH:

"The extent to which they fall on the Right of the political spectrum varies greatly. They range from the center-Right with Forza Italia, Silvio Berlusconi’s party, or the austrian New Popular Party, to the extreme Right, with the Rassemblement national in France, the League and Brothers of Italy in Italy and even to neo-fascism, with Golden Drawn in Greece. But many of them refuse any and all categorization, aiming to speak "in the name of the people" instead, as reflected in the 2017 presidential campaign slogan of France’s Marine Le Pen. Moreover, deep divides are emerging between different Right-wing populists, in addition to the rivalries inherent to their respective nationalisms. Hostility towards Jews is often muted, and sometimes even publicly erased. Similarly, despite the usual rejection of democracy by the far-Right, Right-wing populist parties present themselves as the best of all democrats and accuse traditional parties of both monopolizing and perverting democracy. They claim to restore the original meaning of democracy by returning power to the people. Not all adhere to the "illiberal democracy" put forward and practiced by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Polish leaders."

(Sep 13, 2024 05:49 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Leftwing populism is very rare. When you have to mention protests and riots like Occupy Wallstreet and BLM as possible examples of such a political movement I see you have no real examples. 

Those are real examples. Leftwing populism isn’t rare. Defunding the Police could be considered populism. It appeals to emotion and is a simplified solution. It mobilizes public sentiment against the police or governmental elites perceived as oppressive or unaccountable.

How can you spot a populist?

"Populists tend to resort to a similar kind of rhetoric to win over their audiences. Kirk Hawkins, an associate professor at Brigham Young University in Utah, says it is not as simple as a single word or a catchphrase; a broad rhetorical lexicon tends to recur in populist oratory.

“You will see a leader talk about ordinary people in a way that reifies and romanticizes them,” he says. Examples might be referring to “the will of the people” or dropping in adjectives such as “ordinary”, “hard-working” or “taxpaying” to describe the noble masses.

“The other element you will see is a reference to the evil elite,” Hawkins says. “One thing you’ll see is an emphasis on things that are clearly meant to question their fundamental dignity as political actors if not human beings.”

For example?

"It is time to free the French people from an arrogant elite” – Marine Le Pen

"People want to take back control of their countries and they want to take back control of their lives and the lives of their family” – Donald Trump

"The European elite has failed, and this failure’s symbol is the European Commission” – Victor Orban

"Brexit was about ordinary people rising up to defeat the establishment and we’ve now seen the same happen in the US” – Nigel Farage

What else do they tend to say?

Some resort to nicknames to vilify their opponents – “Crooked Hilary”, for example. “They’ll use verbs and adjectives to describe actions to show it’s not just incompetence but an intentional betrayal,” Hawkins says.

But it is not just what they say but how they say it. Some academics argue that populism necessarily comes with a performative element: it is about the style, the show. Charismatic populists need crowds, a stage, the limelight, usually coupled with a plain-speaking approach that everyone will understand.

“Populist politicians are revolutionizing the ways in which politics is being performed, and they are performing it,” says Claudia Alvares, an associate professor at Lusófona University in Lisbon. “They are not just operating within rightwing or leftwing boundaries because it transcends those affiliations. It is more of a style.”Who votes populist?

Support for populism strongly correlates with lower personal life satisfaction, frustration with democracy and how it is working, and conspiratorial thinking among voters. Blame is a standard populist tool.

On the other hand, minorities of all stripes tend to reject populists because of the narrative, on the right, that identifies the “people” in nativist terms as those who have historically inhabited a country."---
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/de...-bolsonaro

A Green New Deal, wealth redistribution, targeting wealthy elites and framing your party to empower ordinary people and addressing systemic injustices are examples of leftwing populism.

Harris supported all of the above.

It's a useless term and it happens on both sides.

Communism was the prototypical left populist movement, attacking the ruling elites ("capitalists" and the "bourgeoisie") in the name of "the people". The American democratic party during the 20th century was a less violent/revolutionary expression of the very same dynamic. "The people" in opposition to "the ruling class". Civil rights protests, the welfare state, the labor movement...

Today in the 21'st century, politics have totally reversed. The democratic party is the ruling elite: the corporate C-suites, government bureaucracy, journalists, academia, celebrities... basically everyone who imagines that they are better than you are and in a position to dictate how you live your life.

And the conservatives and the newly arisen MAGA movement have come to represent the "people", in opposition to the new "progressive" ruling class who are trying so hard to erase the history and traditions that people still love and identify with, and transform the most basic aspects of our lives (such as male and female).

What we are seeing in the United States right now, and to a greater or lesser degree in Europe as well, is one of those dramatic periods in which entire political ideologies become fluid, break up and re-form into whole new political parties and alliances. In the US we see the democratic party abandoning their historic base in the white working class (and many socially conservative hispanics) to the republicans. While the old-style rich ivy-league prep-school republicans (the "never Trumpers") who were the ruling class enemy in the 20th century shift over to the new "elite" party, the democrats.

In Britain I expect the conservative party which foolishly tried to position itself as the labour-party-lite (equally "woke" but less filling) to wither and fade into the same insignificance that consumed the once-ruling liberals, to be replaced by Nigel Farage's reform party (or something very like it) as the opposition people's party. It could become a real power if it can combine the more traditional rank-and-file conservative vote with their labor party opposite numbers who feel little kinship with the woke and trendy labour party elite down in multicultural London.

We are seeing it in Germany with the inexorable growth of the AfD and the national rally and similar parties in France. It's big in the Netherlands, in Italy and powerful in eastern Europe.

I don't see listening to the people and letting them steer their own lives and that of their communities as a "threat to democracy". It's the essence of democracy, it's what democracy is all about. Decisions flowing upwards rather than downwards. The alternative is some sort of authoritarian neo-aristocracy.

Quote:I don't see listening to the people and letting them steer their own lives and that of their communities as a "threat to democracy". It's the essence of democracy, it's what democracy is all about. Decisions flowing upwards rather than downwards. The alternative is some sort of authoritarian neo-aristocracy.

The difference between Trumpian populism and true democracy was seen on January 6th 2020 at the US Capitol. The populists were attacking the capitol bldg and anyone who stood in their way to change the election results. They were convinced by Trump that the election was stolen from them by the villanous "elites" like Pelosi and Schumer and so responded hysterically with a violent riot to change that and to even lynch Mike Pence for certifying the results of the election.

Democracy otoh was what happened weeks before with the national election and later with the inauguration of Joe Biden as president. That was an orderly and just and fair process that accomplished what it was supposed to in fulfilling the will of the true majority of American citizens. See the difference? It's only the difference between chaos and conspiracy delusions and lies and the actual peaceful working of our democratic electoral system as it was designed to by the founding fathers for over 200 years. The "system" is really not so bad after all compared to what we witnessed on live tv on that day. You can keep your populist mob rule. I'm sticking to our representative democracy.

(Sep 14, 2024 02:08 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Communism was the prototypical left populist movement, attacking the ruling elites ("capitalists" and the "bourgeoisie") in the name of "the people". The American democratic party during the 20th century was a less violent/revolutionary expression of the very same dynamic. "The people" in opposition to "the ruling class". Civil rights protests, the welfare state, the labor movement... 

[...] I don't see listening to the people and letting them steer their own lives and that of their communities as a "threat to democracy". It's the essence of democracy, it's what democracy is all about. Decisions flowing upwards rather than downwards. The alternative is some sort of authoritarian neo-aristocracy.

A non-political or epistemological analogue to this is "ordinary people" believing that they see Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts, and other paranormal incidents. And the corresponding elite or establishment (skeptics, sleuths, naturalists, rationalists, scientists, officials, etc) telling them that they are mistaken or gullible. One might call it "haunted populism" (among other options).

At any rate, there seems to be an innate impulse in humans (that's not limited to teenagers) to either rebel against some authority or to be contrarian toward an "arrogant" and "controlling" something. Just like the necessity to eat, or to breathe, or to reproduce... issues like "validity" don't even enter the picture. It's a placeholder need that imperatively has to be filled by whatever sufficient _X_ offers alleviation.