Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,752
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 3 hours, 24 minutes
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 3
    #26792192 - 06/29/20 02:07 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Sure but like shiva noted, that’s how you get fascism. The right co opts leftist language and uses it to consolidate power. It’s no accident that Carlson, Enjeti, and others have begun ceding ground to leftist rhetoric. This isn’t due to a sudden change in heart, it’s because the right wing sees a generational crisis on the horizon and they know they’ll stop getting the votes they need if they don’t make some concessions.

If you asked me how to define the populist right I’d give two examples: the tea party and the trump 2016 campaign. Two phenomena grounded in lies and expanded with big money, and largely powered by race issues.

Look I’m all for Bernie teaming up with Republicans in the Senate to stop the war in yemen, because that’s the game in DC. But I’m not for this proposed team-up with racists and fascists in the hopes it gets us a healthcare expansion or a reduction in defense spending, because right now the right is only paying lip service to these ideals in order to claw their way back into electoral viability.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBabylon
Shaman


Registered: 05/15/11
Posts: 442
Last seen: 19 days, 5 hours
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Asante] * 1
    #26792519 - 06/29/20 03:50 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Asante said:
Is there even a populist left?





Bernie Sanders

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,418
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 10 hours
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Babylon]
    #26794097 - 06/30/20 09:33 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

He is populist, but not quite popular enough.

Back to the original premise, I can't think of anybody on the right who has ever been for the lower 99%.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26794137 - 06/30/20 09:56 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

I named a handful.  I agree that most conservatives (and democrats) still prefer establishment candidates.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,418
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 1 day, 10 hours
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26794252 - 06/30/20 10:46 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

For me to consider someone a populist, they have to be, among other things, popular. So I see a difference between populists, and some writers I don't know who advocate populism. I realize other people don't see it that way.

I would say Huey Long, Eugene Debs, Hitler, Trump and Bernie Sanders are examples. Hitler and Trump perverted their stated ideals; I'm not sure about Long.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26794272 - 06/30/20 10:52 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Yes, I agreed to early on there seems to be multiple definitions.  I thought it was someone who advocates for the common man over the billionaire, but no one wants to accept that definition, so I'll back away from this discussion.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 8 hours, 1 minute
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: The Ecstatic] * 2
    #26794360 - 06/30/20 11:36 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Sure but like shiva noted, that’s how you get fascism. The right co opts leftist language and uses it to consolidate power. It’s no accident that Carlson, Enjeti, and others have begun ceding ground to leftist rhetoric. This isn’t due to a sudden change in heart, it’s because the right wing sees a generational crisis on the horizon and they know they’ll stop getting the votes they need if they don’t make some concessions.

If you asked me how to define the populist right I’d give two examples: the tea party and the trump 2016 campaign. Two phenomena grounded in lies and expanded with big money, and largely powered by race issues.

Look I’m all for Bernie teaming up with Republicans in the Senate to stop the war in yemen, because that’s the game in DC. But I’m not for this proposed team-up with racists and fascists in the hopes it gets us a healthcare expansion or a reduction in defense spending, because right now the right is only paying lip service to these ideals in order to claw their way back into electoral viability.




The Tea Party wasn't populism at all in my opinion. It was a call for fiscal austerity and nothing more. Who was going to benefit from that fiscal austerity? The Elite of course, that's wasn't a populism movement at all.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: qman]
    #26794369 - 06/30/20 11:41 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

:whathesaid:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 56 minutes
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: qman]
    #26794605 - 06/30/20 01:44 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
International solidarity is one of the foundational positions of left-wing politics. Ethics aside, going all the way back to Marx and Engels there's been a clear argument that economic class, rather than nationality, ethnicity, or culture, is the main force which divides people in society, and that nationalist ideology is a propaganda tool of a society's dominant economic class.

I know that your economic nationalism holds a similar critique of ethnicity and culture, so can you explain why you don't extend that critique to nationality as well? You've probably already answered this in the past but I can't recall.




If the criticism of economic nationalism is that it doesn't embrace an international solidarity, I'm perfectly fine with that outcome. The fact that economic nationalism might potentially benefit natives of all demographics as opposed to foreigners and The Elite of the US is something I can live with. In fact, it's something people in other nations can embrace in their own economies.

I agree that nationalism can be abused by the ruling class for their own benefit, but economic nationalism doesn't have any benefits for The Elite if applied properly. I view nationalism rooted in ideology and economic nationalistic policies are two separate concepts.



Sure, you may be perfectly fine with that outcome but if you want the many people who are not perfectly fine with the 'othering' of foreigners to seriously consider economic nationalism, you will have to address the concerns directly.

You consider economic nationalistic policies as distinct from nationalism, so make that case. Showing the benefits of economic policies that favour nationalism without disparaging the foreign 'other' would go far in distancing your views from ideological nationalism; because if we remove any notions of supremacy from the nationalism - "it's something people in other nations can embrace in their own economies" - than we should be able to make the case for it on merit, without having to rely on an outside threat motivator.

One of my major criticism is that national economies seems like an arbitrary middle-ground between global and local economies - especially when we consider the incredible variation in 200 or so presently existing countries. Do you have an argument to support this distinction?

Final point: you may be correct that - if applied properly - economic nationalism doesn't have any benefits to The Elite but that's a big if. You're talking to an anarchist here, I believe human systems of organization are inherently prone to corruption - and that nationalism (of any sort) is inherently prone to corruption for the same reasons. This is more a criticism of  hierarchical political structuring in general but it still applies - how do we prevent economic nationalism from fueling ideological nationalism that can then be used by The Elite to - say - start another war?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 56 minutes
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26794659 - 06/30/20 02:15 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Are you not going to bother providing your own contrasting definition for populism in response? Just like that discussions over?



I did in the OP.  I said the populist left and the populist right's primary concern is the 99%, not ethnicity, or whatever you thought it was.  I can assure you Trump and Bolsonaro aren't about the 99% (populism in my mind isn't the same as popularity).



I agree; populism is not the same as popularity. Trump and Bolsonaro aren't populists because of popularity - in fact, they are both decidedly unpopular in many ways - they are both populists because they utilize rhetoric that contrasts the people (aka the 99%) against the establishment elite (aka the 1%). Both of them ran populist campaigns that promised to "drain the swamp". That's populism.

Why did I bring up ethnicity? Because the definition of 'the people',  or 'the 99%' if you prefer, is not constant - populists differ in how 'the people' are defined, and it can be based along ethnic lines - but also class, cultural, or national lines (list not necessarily exhaustive).

So sure, maybe both the populist left and the populist right are concerned about the 99% and that looks great on paper if we imagine the 1% to include big business, capital owners and actors perceived as propping up an international capitalist system - but when we examine it more closely? Right-wing populism all-too-commonly includes immigrants, criminals, ethnic and religious minorities, and cosmopolitan elites in the excluded 'other'. How can there be cooperation with an entity that doesn't accept my friends and allies?

A blunt example: Woody Guthrie and Hitler meant two entirely different things when they talked about the folks.





Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I guess what I was trying to say is we should have a party that is anti-establishment that focuses on the things both sides can agree on, and largely ignore other things.

We can't agree on the 2nd amendment?  Let's leave that alone.  We can't agree on gay marriage?  Let's leave that alone.  We can't agree on whether or not to take statues down?  Let's leave that alone.

We can agree on economic things that help everyone but the super rich?  Let's get it done!  :shrug:



Who's to decide what issues get left alone then?

Or do we ignore every contentious issue? It sounds like a disaster recipe for the continuation of the status quo. Can't agree on single-payer healthcare? Let's leave that alone. Can't agree on abortion access? Let's leave that alone. Can't agree on defunding the police? Lets leave that alone. Can't agree on climate change? Let's leave that alone.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26794853 - 06/30/20 03:38 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I guess what I was trying to say is we should have a party that is anti-establishment that focuses on the things both sides can agree on, and largely ignore other things.

We can't agree on the 2nd amendment?  Let's leave that alone.  We can't agree on gay marriage?  Let's leave that alone.  We can't agree on whether or not to take statues down?  Let's leave that alone.

We can agree on economic things that help everyone but the super rich?  Let's get it done!  :shrug:



Who's to decide what issues get left alone then?

Or do we ignore every contentious issue? It sounds like a disaster recipe for the continuation of the status quo.



Exactly.  Ignore every contentious issue, because I don't think the status quo is a 'disaster' like you do.  If guns don't go away, so what?  If we don't open our borders to immigrants, so what?

Economic issues are FAR more important, like getting billionaires to pay as much as taxes as the bottom 50%.  Putting money back into the hands of the 99%, in other words.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Can't agree on single-payer healthcare? Let's leave that alone. Can't agree on abortion access? Let's leave that alone. Can't agree on defunding the police? Lets leave that alone. Can't agree on climate change? Let's leave that alone.



Single payer healthcare IS an economic issue that people on BOTH sides are now embracing (no, not establishment people on either side).  Status quo for the other issues is just fine by me.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 56 minutes
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26795317 - 06/30/20 07:16 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Exactly.  Ignore every contentious issue, because I don't think the status quo is a 'disaster' like you do.  If guns don't go away, so what?  If we don't open our borders to immigrants, so what?

Economic issues are FAR more important, like getting billionaires to pay as much as taxes as the bottom 50%.  Putting money back into the hands of the 99%, in other words.

Single payer healthcare IS an economic issue that people on BOTH sides are now embracing (no, not establishment people on either side).  Status quo for the other issues is just fine by me.




Fine by you maybe but try and have some perspective here. Correct me if I am wrong, but I've gathered from your posts over the years that you are a straight white male with a comfortable white-collar existence. Do you think it's possible that the way you perceive many social issues will be radically different from the perception of those directly harmed?

For example, it's easy to say that abortion access isn't as important as economic policy until you've had to deal with the horrors of an at home abortion.

Your sentiment was already wrong a century ago when women - who couldn't yet work or vote - would question what a workers revolution offered them. Men would frequently see the issue of women’s rights as, at best, secondary to the emancipation of workers - a lesser problem that would be resolved after the revolution. Wrong then and still wrong now.

Turning a blind-eye to social injustice in the pursuit of economic benefit is not a road we should be willing to go down.



I also notice, with regards to single payer healthcare, that you changed the phrasing from "noncontentious" to "people on both sides are now embracing". These are two significantly different qualifiers. Single payer healthcare is still undoubtedly a contentious issue in the USA - there are people on both sides who are embracing gun law reform. Are you using these qualifiers interchangeably as suits your argument?



Finally, I would be interested in reading your comment regarding my claim that 'the 99%' and 'the 1%' are labels that don't always refer to the same groups - because if it's true then all talk of left and right populism unity goes right out the widow.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,752
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 3 hours, 24 minutes
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: qman] * 1
    #26796417 - 07/01/20 07:29 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Sure but like shiva noted, that’s how you get fascism. The right co opts leftist language and uses it to consolidate power. It’s no accident that Carlson, Enjeti, and others have begun ceding ground to leftist rhetoric. This isn’t due to a sudden change in heart, it’s because the right wing sees a generational crisis on the horizon and they know they’ll stop getting the votes they need if they don’t make some concessions.

If you asked me how to define the populist right I’d give two examples: the tea party and the trump 2016 campaign. Two phenomena grounded in lies and expanded with big money, and largely powered by race issues.

Look I’m all for Bernie teaming up with Republicans in the Senate to stop the war in yemen, because that’s the game in DC. But I’m not for this proposed team-up with racists and fascists in the hopes it gets us a healthcare expansion or a reduction in defense spending, because right now the right is only paying lip service to these ideals in order to claw their way back into electoral viability.




The Tea Party wasn't populism at all in my opinion. It was a call for fiscal austerity and nothing more. Who was going to benefit from that fiscal austerity? The Elite of course, that's wasn't a populism movement at all.




The tea party was much more than a call for austerity, don’t pretend there wasn’t a huge race component. It was the pretext to the Trump campaign.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26796763 - 07/01/20 10:46 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
it's easy to say that abortion access isn't as important as economic policy until you've had to deal with the horrors of an at home abortion.



Is abortion illegal?  If we leave it alone, we don't have to worry about your scenario.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Your sentiment was already wrong a century ago when women - who couldn't yet work or vote - would question what a workers revolution offered them. Men would frequently see the issue of women’s rights as, at best, secondary to the emancipation of workers - a lesser problem that would be resolved after the revolution. Wrong then and still wrong now.



Can women not work or vote?  If we leave it alone, we don't have to worry about your scenario.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
I also notice, with regards to single payer healthcare, that you changed the phrasing from "noncontentious" to "people on both sides are now embracing". These are two significantly different qualifiers. Single payer healthcare is still undoubtedly a contentious issue in the USA - there are people on both sides who are embracing gun law reform. Are you using these qualifiers interchangeably as suits your argument?



No, I already explained that my definition was for economic relief; we leave the other issues alone.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Finally, I would be interested in reading your comment regarding my claim that 'the 99%' and 'the 1%' are labels that don't always refer to the same groups - because if it's true then all talk of left and right populism unity goes right out the widow.



The 99% would be based strictly on income.  If you make less than the top 1%, then you're in the 99%.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26796780 - 07/01/20 10:59 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

To be clear, my suggestion was only for the USA and only for right now.  I realize this wouldn't work everywhere at any time.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 56 minutes
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26797079 - 07/01/20 01:57 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
it's easy to say that abortion access isn't as important as economic policy until you've had to deal with the horrors of an at home abortion.



Is abortion illegal?  If we leave it alone, we don't have to worry about your scenario.



Something can be technically legal while still having significant barriers to access. Is abortion reasonably accessible in the USA to those need it?


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Your sentiment was already wrong a century ago when women - who couldn't yet work or vote - would question what a workers revolution offered them. Men would frequently see the issue of women’s rights as, at best, secondary to the emancipation of workers - a lesser problem that would be resolved after the revolution. Wrong then and still wrong now.



Can women not work or vote?  If we leave it alone, we don't have to worry about your scenario.



Obviously that was a historical example of your attitude, not a hypothetical future result of it. Did women win those rights by deciding to "leave it alone"? My point is that social inequality is still a reality just as much as economic inequality is, and cannot be ignored.  The rallying cry to support economic justice before social justice is incredibly tone deaf and lacks perspective - you need to understand that your perception comes from a position of privilege where social inequality effects you much less than economic inequality.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
I also notice, with regards to single payer healthcare, that you changed the phrasing from "noncontentious" to "people on both sides are now embracing". These are two significantly different qualifiers. Single payer healthcare is still undoubtedly a contentious issue in the USA - there are people on both sides who are embracing gun law reform. Are you using these qualifiers interchangeably as suits your argument?



No, I already explained that my definition was for economic relief; we leave the other issues alone.



I guess I got confused when you appeared to defend single payer healthcare as a noncontentious issue. What conditions should be present before we don't have to "leave the other issues alone" anymore?


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Finally, I would be interested in reading your comment regarding my claim that 'the 99%' and 'the 1%' are labels that don't always refer to the same groups - because if it's true then all talk of left and right populism unity goes right out the widow.



The 99% would be based strictly on income.  If you make less than the top 1%, then you're in the 99%.



Yes, that's your definition - my point is that right-wing populism as it currently exists in the USA uses a different definition. It doesn't matter if two groups agree that X deserves [economic policy] if X is defined differently by the two groups.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26797187 - 07/01/20 02:39 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
I got confused when you appeared to defend single payer healthcare as a noncontentious issue. What conditions should be present before we don't have to "leave the other issues alone" anymore?



I should have said we should ignore the contentious issues that don't impact people's wallet.  Medicare for All as originally proposed by Bernie is obviously contentious, but would have given the bottom 95% a break in how much they pay for healthcare.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The 99% would be based strictly on income.  If you make less than the top 1%, then you're in the 99%.



Yes, that's your definition - my point is that right-wing populism as it currently exists in the USA uses a different definition. It doesn't matter if two groups agree that X deserves [economic policy] if X is defined differently by the two groups.



Right, that was my definition.  Once I realized other people wanted different definitions, I politely apologized and said I would back off this discussion.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26807633 - 07/06/20 06:18 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

Graham Elwood from 1:53 to 2:16



"If you wanna beat Trump, hey this resonates:

- Medicare for All
- $15/hr minimum wage
- Student Debt forgiveness
- Free (public) college education
- Ending wars

That resonates with red state voters too."


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,752
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 3 hours, 24 minutes
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26808642 - 07/07/20 09:28 AM (3 years, 8 months ago)

That’s why Bernie is wildly popular with independents and even Republicans.

I think the chief problem with getting these popular ideas codified into legislation is the electoral stranglehold of the democratic establishment. We break that, and the Democrats will start winning elections again. And besides, taking down the corporate backed bulwark that is the Democratic Party is a much nobler cause for populist progress than appeasing bigotry.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,471
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 2 hours, 56 minutes
Re: "Populist Left and Populist Right" vs "Establishment Left and Establishment Right" [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26809563 - 07/07/20 05:49 PM (3 years, 8 months ago)

I think the following selection clearly illustrates why the notion of left-right populism is misguided:

Quote:

We define populism as a style, not an ideology. Populists are politicians who centrally pit the “people” against the “elite” or “establishment,” identify with the former, and attack the
latter. The term is value-neutral, and we do not use it to refer to short-sighted economic policies or right-wing extremism. One can deploy populism in the service of almost any ideology or program, left or right, moderate or extreme.

[...]

Numerous factors facilitate populism’s rise. Inequality, economic crisis, corruption, and deficient public services contribute to anti-elite sentiment. Electronic and social media allow populist entrepreneurs to bypass party organizations and directly appeal to voters (e.g., via television, Twitter). But the key explanatory factor, on which we will focus, is the “depoliticization” of divisive policy issues. Depoliticization occurs when elites are so united around a given issue that discussing that issue falls outside the bound of regular political debate. When elites depoliticize divisive issues, segments of the public, predictably, may come to feel unrepresented by, and thus antagonistic toward, them.

[...]

Over the last generation or two, a Western elite consensus has emerged in support of free market capitalism, or neoliberalism. Stated in the above terms, neoliberalism has become an area of depoliticized elite consensus. By “free market capitalism” and “neoliberalism,” we mean economic policies such as free trade, market liberalization, deregulation, and limited taxation and social spending.

Parties and figures on the political right (e.g., Reagan, Thatcher) led the neoliberal turn, and established left-wing forces accepted and helped to consolidate it. Before the turn, left parties were social democratic and heavily redistributionist, with strong bases of public support among workers and trade unions. Today’s left-wing parties are less heavily redistributionist and more widely embrace free market policies than their predecessors. Increasingly, they rely on highly educated voters rather than workers for electoral support. In the US and Britain, for example, the Democratic and Labour Parties moderated their redistributive and trade policies in the 1990s. In France, the Socialist government of Francois Hollande substantially liberalized the national labor code through the “El Khomri” law. All three have come to rely more heavily on college-educated voters and less heavily on working-class voters.

Left populist voters are economically driven. Their primary subjective political grievances are the neoliberal turn, economic hardship, and perceived economic injustice. They believe that they no longer have a “dog in the fight” –i.e., that there is no longer an established political force that opposes neoliberalism and advocates for the working class. Left populists enter this vacuum, placing central programmatic emphasis on rejecting or reversing free market capitalism. They focus on economic pain and unfairness; lament the decline of labor unions and the middle class; highlight the perceived insufficiencies of redistributive systems and social safety nets; and criticize established left forces for capitulating to neoliberalism.

[...]

What about electoral demand for right populism? Here, the story is different. Neoliberalism is not the only area of depoliticized elite consensus in the advanced West. Social progressivism, we argue, is a second (and highly consequential) one. By social progressivism, we mean skepticism of traditional values, religious beliefs, and “retro norms”; openness to multiculturalism and immigration; and greater attention to the rights claims of marginalized groups such as women and racial and sexual minorities.

Just as the political right led the neoliberal turn, the political left led this socially progressive turn; and just as established left forces accepted the neoliberal turn, established right forces have largely accepted the socially progressive turn. In recent decades, conservative establishments across the Western world have shifted considerably on specific policy questions such as abortion, same-sex marriage,and immigration, and with respect to broader social trends such as changing gender roles, racial and sexual diversity, and multiculturalism. An increasing proportion of “establishment” Republican elites and opinion leaders in the United States, for example, support same-sex marriage and (at least prior to the rise of Donald Trump) immigration reform. Germany’s Christian Democratic Party, under the leadership of Angela Merkel, famously oversaw the “welcoming” of nearly one million migrants in 2015. Under David Cameron, British Conservatives “modernized” their policies on same-sex marriage and other hot-button cultural issues. Across Europe, parties of the mainstream right now advocate a minimalist nationalism and embrace the quasi-supranational vision of the EU. In short, on the divisive social questions of recent decades, major pre-populist parties of the right sued for peace.

In contrast to left populist voters, right populist voters are socially and culturally driven. They are social conservatives, and their primary subjective political grievances are social progressivism and mass immigration. Like their left populist counterparts, they believe that they no longer have a “dog in the fight” –i.e., that there is no longer an established political force that opposes social progressivism and mass immigration. Right populists (e.g., Trump, Germany’s AfD) enter this vacuum, placing central programmatic emphasis on rejecting or reversing social progressivism. They focus on social and cultural grievances; lament the erosion of traditional values and national identities; and criticize established right forces for capitulating to social progressivism and demographic change.

[...]

Western social conservatives do not just oppose social progressivism; they tend to oppose unfettered free market capitalism, too (even if the former is more salient to them). These social conservatives tend to be white, working-class, and non-urban. For them, relative (although not absolute) material conditions have declined significantly in recent decades. This relative decline has occurred, in part, due to neoliberal policies such as trade liberalization and lower taxes on the wealthy. Many right populist voters therefore support policies designed to reverse or soften neoliberalism such as trade protectionism and higher taxes on the wealthy.

The reverse is not true. Economically progressive voters (upon whom left populists depend) tend to support social progressivism. Many of them are young, and a disproportionate number are college-educated; both youth and college education correlate with ideological support for progressive social causes. Economically progressive voters also include a relatively high proportion of women and racial and sexual minorities, many of whom credit social progressivism with improved conditions and expanded opportunities for their demographic groups.

[...]

Why does all of this matter? It matters because right populist voters, unlike left populist voters, are doubly alienated. They reject the prevailing social and economic orders. An important consequence is that right populists, even though they focus on attacking social progressivism, can attack free market capitalism, too, without alienating their base. By contrast, left populists can only attack free market capitalism; if they attack social progressivism, they will hemorrhage supporters, who react negatively to socially conservative rhetoric (e.g., critiques of rapid mass immigration or evolving gender roles).

[...]

This has two effects. First, right populists can more easily attract former left-wing voters than left populists can attract former right-wing voters. After all, they hold some anti-neoliberal economic positions, whereas left populists do not hold any conservative social positions. Second, because right populists mix right and left positions, ordinary voters perceive them as, on balance, more programmatically moderate than left populists –although not necessarily more moderate in their attitude toward democracy. Consequently, right populists can also more easily attract moderate, centrist voters –at least those primarily concerned with programmatic issues. Both dynamics advantage right populists in open, nationwide elections.

The data bear out this set of arguments . Before the 2016 US presidential election, for example, American voters regarded Donald Trump as the most moderate and least partisan GOP nominee in a generation. Trump’s winning electoral coalition included a plurality of moderates and independents, and his popularity with both groups substantially exceeded that of previous Republican nominees. France’s National Front and Germany’s AfD, despite drawing most of their support from traditional constituencies of the mainstream right, made crucial inroads with formerly non-right voting blocs. The National Front performed well in France’s “Socialist strongholds,” and the AfD siphoned nearly a million votes from the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) and far-left Left Party (Die Linke) in the 2017 German elections. In the 2019 EU Parliament elections, Britain’s right populist Brexit Party drew 13 percent of its support from erstwhile Labour Voters, while the Labour Party, under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, did not draw significant support from the Conservative Party.



pdf link: Why Right Populists Beat Left Populists (in the West)


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* boumediene..al-odah v bush... Annapurna1 1,002 18 06/12/08 02:31 PM
by johnm214
* Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (UDV), No. 04-1084 Redstorm 1,202 4 06/14/05 02:00 PM
by Redstorm
* Fire the government (important information for Americans) Jive turkey 1,647 13 09/01/07 10:34 AM
by zappaisgod
* a healthy read... uki 496 2 06/15/04 02:37 PM
by uki
* Big Pharma
( 1 2 3 4 all )
poke smot! 4,144 68 08/30/07 06:57 AM
by SneezingPenis
* What Could There Possibly be Beyond Democracy?(P1) FutureExPatriot 1,187 10 10/19/02 03:10 AM
by Evolving
* “V” Meets The Secret Service Konnrade 1,274 6 05/11/07 10:22 AM
by Seuss
* McCain chooses Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for V.P.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 )
Azen 14,175 298 09/01/08 09:00 PM
by Gastronomicus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,860 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.042 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.