What is Populism?

[Gloominary]

What are its origins?
Is it a sociopolitical philosophy or ideology?
Are there any sociopolitical philosophers or ideologues who developed and championed it?
Is it left, right, center or outside the left-right paradigm?

Is it whatever people believe is in their best interests?
Is it what's actually in their best interests?
Or is it whatever prominent politicians who claim to exclusively represent the people say is in their best interests?

And who are the people?
Are they any and all people, or citizens of a particular nation state, or the largest demographic within a particular nation state?

Are there different schools of populism?
Does populism manifest differently in North America than it does Latin America or Europe?
And finally, what's its future, if it has one at all?

[Gloominary]

For me, populism is both what the people believe is in their best interests, what is in their best interests, and a concrete ideology, but it's not necessarily what some prominent politician who claims to exclusively represent the people (as opposed to special interests) says is in their best interests.
Just because x politician claims to be exclusively for the people, doesn't make him a populist, they have to earn the trust and support of the people, and have their interests at heart and in mind, in order to be populists.

The people manifest their trust and support through activism, contributing, donating to and voting for a party or politician.
The less grass roots a party or politician, the less likely they're populists.
So populism is necessarily democratic.

The people aren't any and all people, they're at the very least citizens of a particular nation state (not foreigners), if not the demographic the majority of people belong to, or if there is none, then the demographic the largest minority of people belong to.
In North America, this means working and middle class white men and women.
To put Canada first, which's what we should do, means to put these people first.
A country that puts foreigners, minorities and the elite first is like a family that puts others ahead of their own children i.e. not a family at all.

For me, populism isn't left or right.
You could say it's center, but it's more accurate to say it's center-right on cultural and social issues (libertarian conservatism, white nationalism), and center-left on economic issues (social democracy and social corporatism).

It's center-left on economic issues rather than far-left, because about half the people belong to the working class, and the other half the middle class.
The working class lean left on economic issues, and the middle class center.
Populism doesn't pit the working and middle classes against each other.
Also, far-left (democratic socialism) or far-right (unsocial corporatism) often or usually lead to totalitarian dictatorship, which's undemocratic, unpopular, and so not populist.

Populism also doesn't pit men and women against each other either, or half the population against the other half.
However, there're two forms of equality between men and women, traditional equality, and modern equality.
Traditional equality meant women had less negative rights, but more positive rights than men.
Modern equality meant women had as many negative and positive rights as men.
Post-modern equality, which isn't equality at all, means women have more negative and positive rights than men.

Post-modern feminism is incompatible with populism.
But both traditional equality, and modern equality are compatible with populism, and I'm open to having either one, or a combination of the two.
Men and women can decide together what they think is best.

[WendyDarling]

Is it too late for populism in the sense that you intend it in the West?

[Gloominary]

We had populism in the sense I mean it in the English speaking world from about 1933 (the New Deal) to 1965 (the Immigration and Naturalization Act) or 1979 (the neoliberalism of Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney).
In between 1933 and 1965 we were socially center-right and fiscally center-left.
For me, this was the golden age of the English speaking world in the 20th century.
It's since been reversed.
Now we're socially center or far-left and fiscally center or far-right.
Can we get back to something like where we were?
Difficult perhaps, unlikely, not impossible, but not without tribulation.

[Gloominary]

Check this article out:

https://medium.com/@maestrojmc/who-are-the-socially-conservative-and-fiscally-progressive-200992f9ecc5

[obsrvr524]

Isn't populism merely the antithesis of elitism? It doesn't promote any particular economic or social model other than to avoid elitist tyranny. President Trump is a notable populist.

[Gloominary]

Isn't populism merely the antithesis of elitism? It doesn't promote any particular economic or social model other than to avoid elitist tyranny. President Trump is a notable populist.

For you, all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is synonymous with republicanism and Donald Trump is a republican.
For me, not all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is national social democracy and Donald Trump is a republican in rhetoric only, in reality he's a neocon Ziofascist, republicrats are all Ziofascists.

[Gloominary]

From that article:

On the Right, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson has caused quite a stir by claiming that the conservative emphasis on the family and family moral values cannot be subordinated to the exaltation of free market capitalism as the be-all-and-end-all of the “American Dream”; rather, he claims, the market must be structured to serve the family.

Catholic Left-wing journalist Elizabeth Bruenig, who has promoted a brand of “Catholic socialism” in her columns at the Washington Post.
Bruenig and her policy-wonk husband, Matt Bruenig, have identified themselves as democratic socialists, and have proposed Left-leaning policies such as a child allowance, explicitly connecting such a policy to socially conservative concerns for de-incentivizing abortion. Such a policy, they have also pointed out, has the benefit of appealing to feminist demands for women’s wages and conservative family values. These proposals evidence the possibility of a political philosophy and a political program which transcends traditional Left and Right, or liberal/progressive and conservative, categories.

Outside of America, in Europe, other movements generally considered Right-wing have adopted similar policies usually thought to be socialist in nature. In Hungary, prime minister Viktor Orban is said to have “out-socialized the socialists” by providing strong welfare benefits to middle class families, with the intention of mitigating the effects that free market capitalism tends to have on such families. Orban is also concerned to fight the trend of a declining population in Hungary. The conservative Law and Justice government of Poland has instituted similar welfare policies targeted toward families — policies usually thought to be characteristic of Left-wing politics such as those practiced by the welfare states of Scandinavian countries like Norway and Finland, or those proposed by the Democratic Socialists of America. These changes in Hungary and Poland have coincided with a strong shift away from liberal democracy and towards illiberal democracy, and a re-embracing of national cultural identity and traditional Judaeo-Christian social values.

[obsrvr524]

Isn't populism merely the antithesis of elitism? It doesn't promote any particular economic or social model other than to avoid elitist tyranny. President Trump is a notable populist.

For you, all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is synonymous with republicanism and Donald Trump is a republican.

I don't know what makes you think that, but it is false.

For me, not all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is national social democracy and Donald Trump is a republican in rhetoric only, in reality he's a neocon Ziofascist, republicrats are all Ziofascists.

Apparently you live in a very dark distorted (gloomy) bubble of misbelief. No doubt a result of your news sources.

I wasn't talking about anyone's political stance but merely the meaning of an English word.

[Zero_Sum]

Isn't populism merely the antithesis of elitism? It doesn't promote any particular economic or social model other than to avoid elitist tyranny. President Trump is a notable populist.

So, on the lines of an uncontrolled spontaneous grassroots movement uncontrolled by the elite power structure?

Sure, I can go with that at least for the modern context of the word.

[Gloominary]

Isn't populism merely the antithesis of elitism? It doesn't promote any particular economic or social model other than to avoid elitist tyranny. President Trump is a notable populist.

For you, all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is synonymous with republicanism and Donald Trump is a republican.

I don't know what makes you think that, but it is false.

So for you, populism can be anything, conservative or progressive, so long as its anti-elitism, or anti-policies that benefit the elite at the expense of the middle and working classes? If that's the case, that's a much broader definition of populism than the one I was proposing.

[surreptitious75]

Populism is simply what the majority want at any given time - no more no less
It is not actually a modern day phenomenon because it has existed for as long as civilisation has - it existed for example back in the days of antiquity
So it may appear to be a twenty first century phenomenon because of social media but that just means that it is more accessible through technology

There is populism of both the left and the right in general and of specific issues as well such as for example abortion or the death penalty
It may alternate between different world views because what is popular now may not necessarily be so tomorrow
Right now here in the West it has a strong liberal bias but in the future it may change to a more conservative one

So while populism itself will always exist within the masses what the masses actually think is popular will not always be the same
This is why those who express populist views cannot claim the moral high ground because those views will not be popular always

And it is also a logical fallacy - specifically a non sequitur - because popularity and morality are not necessarily connected
Something is not automatically moral merely because it is popular but even if it is it is nothing more than just coincidence

[obsrvr524]

anti-policies that benefit the elite at the expense of the middle and working classes?

That is one of the more serious mistakes of mind that people make when reviewing politics. A policy benefiting the wealthy does NOT necessarily hinder the poor. A policy that benefits the elites does NOT necessarily promote elitism.

"The rising tide lifts all boats." - Wen Kang - The Gallant Maid

It's a phrase often used in reference to a rising economy, especially when the less wealthy are benefiting as well as the wealthy.

Elitism strives for the opposite during any economic boost - wealthy for ONLY the elite so as to further ensure dominance (Bushes, Clinton, Obama) while hypocritically preaching the opposite. Elitism and Socialism are intrinsically bound (such as seen in California and New York).

Hillary was an elitist - grant us more power over you so that we can force your neighbors to obey the good.
Trump was a populist - increase the wealth and health of the entire nation regardless of class.


To surreptitious75's point, a populist is not necessarily the most popular either. The definitional issue is whether the person is striving to benefit the general population rather than the elite of that population. The socialist vanguard always hate the populists because socialists thrive on the suffering of the masses.

[Karpel Tunnel]

For me, populism is both what the people believe is in their best interests, what is in their best interests, and a concrete ideology, but it's not necessarily what some prominent politician who claims to exclusively represent the people (as opposed to special interests) says is in their best interests.
Just because x politician claims to be exclusively for the people, doesn't make him a populist, they have to earn the trust and support of the people, and have their interests at heart and in mind, in order to be populists.

The people manifest their trust and support through activism, contributing, donating to and voting for a party or politician.
The less grass roots a party or politician, the less likely they're populists.
So populism is necessarily democratic.

One person's populism is another person's people finally shoving aside the problematic politicians and choosing freely. The term is usually pejorative, but I think we have to move away from the value judgment as see what it means without assuming it is either good or bad.

A candidate can create his or her own populist status through the usual lies and manipulation all politicians are capable of. It's not like they just come along and are recognizing. They can make people think they are representing them and their values. They can even create those values. Here's what your frustration is really about, here's what is causing it.

So a more or less neutral definition I just plucked....

a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

perhaps could be made more neutral removing 'strives to' and adding an s to appeal.

So, it is this person who contrasts him or herself with the usual fare. They may not be a contrast: iow they may be lying. They may be a contrast: but really they don't represent the people they appeal to or are striving to appeal to. They may create their appeal. They may actually represent things that people who feel disenfranchized are feeling. Or a mix of these.

Further, the values they are appealing to may be confused.

People often think that, for example, X is in their best interests, and they are wrong.

The people who feel disregarded may be right about that - and generally I think they are - but be wrong about what needs to happen.

Populists can have some good solutions mixed in with other thigns that are neurtal or bad. They may be tyrants. They may have a primarily bad agenda (explicit or secret).

My main points are
1) I think it's good if we think of the term as neither good nor bad per se, but as a particular form.
2) They may reflect a desire for certain policies and values, or they may create them or there can be a mix of these things, since populist philosophers including would be political candidates
are all the time telling people what they should and do thing and should and do value. Just as the other kinds of politicians are doing this.

[Fixed Cross]

Populism is a term used by elites to deride a politician who has the ear of the masses. Caesar was the first famous western populist.

[Fixed Cross]

Isn't populism merely the antithesis of elitism? It doesn't promote any particular economic or social model other than to avoid elitist tyranny. President Trump is a notable populist.

For you, all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is synonymous with republicanism and Donald Trump is a republican.
For me, not all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is national social democracy and Donald Trump is a republican in rhetoric only, in reality he's a neocon Ziofascist, republicrats are all Ziofascists.

What on Earth is all you dudes issues with Zionism. Its so weird.

Zionism. Meaning: the politics of Jews to return to their own land.

Why are you so fascinated with what happens in that small piece of land you'll very likely never even visit? Why does it hurt you so much that the Jews are no longer prey to an given horde of morons?

Never mind, I know he answers: "muh jews have made me an incel!"

[Zero_Sum]

Isn't populism merely the antithesis of elitism? It doesn't promote any particular economic or social model other than to avoid elitist tyranny. President Trump is a notable populist.

For you, all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is synonymous with republicanism and Donald Trump is a republican.
For me, not all social and fiscal intervention is or leads to elitism, populism is national social democracy and Donald Trump is a republican in rhetoric only, in reality he's a neocon Ziofascist, republicrats are all Ziofascists.

What on Earth is all you dudes issues with Zionism. Its so weird.

Zionism. Meaning: the politics of Jews to return to their own land.

Why are you so fascinated with what happens in that small piece of land you'll very likely never even visit? Why does it hurt you so much that the Jews are no longer prey to an given horde of morons?

Never mind, I know he answers: "muh jews have made me an incel!"

Going to be very interesting when the west economically crumbles and collapses what all the angry incel males are going to do through various means of retaliation especially when they become organized amongst themselves. Acts of organized terrorism comes to mind.

Jews, radical feminists, and the upper middle class are going to eat those mean words wishing they have never uttered them to begin with me thinks. Too late now, the damage is already done.

With a collapsed society I imagine former radical feminists performing fellatio under street bridges and alley ways just to survive. That's why I keep going on in living, to witness such an event would make these last twenty years of misery or suffering all the more worth it. I want to savor their tears.

[Urwrongx1000]

I think your assessment is sufficient.

Populism is based on the Populace, meaning, a society represents its Core or 'Center'. Obviously a society must reproduce, otherwise it dies. So the families or mothers are its representatives. Some populations are homogeneous (Racial ties) while others are heterogeneous (Ethnic tribal infighting). Western Civilization is heterogeneous, meaning that small ethnic groups carve out enclaves and try to prevent other ethnic groups from invading or growing too powerful. In Eastern USA, these ethnic clashes were between Scots, Irish, Italians, and British Colonialists (WASPs), who eventually rose to power in Washington DC. The ethnic divisions are still applicable today, despite any ethnic-mixing and marriage between the groups. The "American Mutt" is symbolic of blurring ethnic lines and divisions. Thus in a Heterogeneous society, the "Populism" will appeal to the dominant social-castes (like WASPs), and then appeal to racial and ethnic divisions (black vs white).

[Fixed Cross]

That's why I keep going on in living, to witness such an event would make these last twenty years of misery or suffering all the more worth it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
you are so fucking slavish.

To keep living only to see God punish the happy people.

[Zero_Sum]

That's why I keep going on in living, to witness such an event would make these last twenty years of misery or suffering all the more worth it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
you are so fucking slavish.

To keep living only to see God punish the happy people.

If I can't have happiness, why should they?

There's nothing more pleasurable than seeing others fall from grace losing everything especially since many acquired their economically privileged means through inheritance, corruption, or utilizing an unfair system.

I just want to be there when they begin their sad swan dance into oblivion and destruction, bring them down a few notches watching them despair.

[Fixed Cross]

Oh was it all unfair to you?



Life is will to power, you faggot.

[Fixed Cross]

Pardon my French.

I should leave this thread to you guys. No one gives a fuck about reality here anyway.

[Zero_Sum]

Oh was it all unfair to you?



Life is will to power, you faggot.

Right, so when the nation economically collapses the disenfranchised will have gathered together with their grievances in the formation of a fascist government body undoubtedly through violent civil war and anybody that opposes them will be lined up against the wall to be shot in the head faggot......

Pardon my French.

I should leave this thread to you guys. No one gives a fuck about reality here anyway.

You're right, you can remove yourself any time of your own choosing.

[Fixed Cross]

Okay tough guy.



Im now expecting the incel government to establish itself with you as its head.

[Zero_Sum]

That's all you got Fixed? Weak.

Go back to taking hits off your bong man, it's what you're good at. Toke it up buddy.