General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy I'm leery of the word "populism"
I'm adapting this from a different thread, because it's something I care about. I worry about "populism" because in the US it has always historically proven to be white supremacy dressed up in the language of economic justice.
The first big incarnation of populism, the "People's Party", endorsed William Jennings Bryan in 1896. Here's something of his from a stump speech:
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/w_bryan_white.html
There is a white man's burden -- a burden which the white man should not shirk even if he could, a burden which he could not shirk even if he would. That no one liveth unto himself or dieth unto himself, has a national as well as an individual application. Our destinies are so interwoven that each exerts an influence directly or indirectly upon all others.
Sometimes this influence is unconsciously exerted, as when, for instance, the good or bad precedent set by one nation in dealing with its own affairs is followed by some other nation. Sometimes the influence is incidentally exerted, as when, for example, a nation, in the extension of its commerce, introduces its language and enlarges the horizon of the people with whom it trades.
Later, the populist movement of the 1920s hitched its star to Robert M. LaFollette, who pushed eugenics into Wisconsin social policy. A decade later, the standardbearers of populism were Huey P. Long and Fr. Charles Coughlin, whose racism (I hope) needs no introduction. Long and Coughlin both railed constantly against FDR for giving away too much of the New Deal to minorities (modern thinkers tend to fault him severely for the fact that the New Deal barely included nonwhites at all; even that was too much for the populists of the day) with the result that both broke with FDR by 1936 after supporting him in 1932. FDR, remember, was a Bourbon Democrat, not a populist, at least in terms of the voting coalition he brought to the party.
This era (the 1920s and 1930s) also saw the second resurgence of the KKK, largely in the midwest; the Klan was every bit a "populist" and "progressive" movement in its day (and at this point, Strom Thurmond was a "progressive" Democrat who opposed many of FDR's policies because they involved to some extent white tax money going to blacks -- the progressives and populists wanted a fully functioning social democracy for whites only).
The next populist national leader was George Wallace, who admittedly had a "dynamic" view on racial issues, but only achieved populist success as a virulent racist. This gets to my premise on Bernie: the history of populism has not been of racist demogogues turning aggrieved whites against blacks and immigrants, but of racist aggrieved whites pushing their leaders into increasingly racist positions -- c.f. Wallace's vow never to be "out-n****red" by an opponent again.
The more recent appearance of populism as a self-identified movement hit public attention in 1992 with the Perot fans, who are essentially the same people as the current Tea Party.
Populism -- at least its core ideas -- did precede Bryan (consider the anti-Masonic and anti-immigrant "Know Nothings" of the middle 19th century), but the 1890s was the first time I know of that a movement consistently called itself "populist". At any rate, the consistent theme, at least to my eyes, has been that of aggrieved working class/poor whites, generally rural, and increasingly "ethnic white" as time progressed (and as the "ethnics" became "white" .
It is a truism, variously attributed to many writers, that if America were entirely white we would have the most socialist government in the developed world, and that's probably true; for an entire book on that question, see Katznelson's "Fear Itself" on the role white supremacy played in the establishment of the New Deal. But the fact remains: government programs that are seen as helping white people (SS, Medicare, SSDI) are viewed highly positively by poor whites, while government programs that are seen as helping nonwhites (SSI, TANF/AFDC, SNAP) are viewed highly negatively by poor whites (in general, of course).
Populism scares me. I admit it. It has nothing to do with the populists' taking on rich people. It has everything to do with the fact that the aggrieved white working class left to its own devices has shown itself to be very, very racist, over and over again.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)Most of the populist movements of the nineteenth century ultimately failed because poor white folks always ended up siding with rich white folks over poor black folks.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)newblewtoo
(667 posts)Hope and Change.
K&R
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)eom
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)that are anything BUT populist in their approach!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)He is the most consequential and transformational president in my lifetime and I eagerly look forward to Hillary Clinton defending his legacy from Republican attacks and building on it.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The opposite would be being for an oligarchy...corporatism, theocracy, or monarchy.
Which side are you on?
https://m.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)As has been pointed out above -a lot of the working class whites would like to see Latinos and Muslims driven out of the country, not to mention blacks.
Bryant
MineralMan
(146,341 posts)Just about every politician pretends to speak for "the people." None actually do, because no such unified group exists.
What "populism" in practice often means is speaking for the (politically, not numerically) dominant group. Which in America, is straight white men.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)POPULISM reflects "populace" which doesn't just talk about people that are more *powerful*. It is where people stand AGAINST dominant power, the opposite of how you are trying to define it!
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)It's a good thing that the populism of the LEFT is it's polar opposite; welcoming to all races.
Indeed, people like Eugene V Debs, a socialist populist, was one of the founders of The Industrial Workers of the World (aka 'the Wobblies or just 'the I.W.W'). The I.W.W was unique for a labor union of that time period due to it's welcoming embrace of workers of all races.
One of the IWW's most important contributions to the labor movement and broader push towards social justice was that, when founded, it was the only American union to welcome all workers including women, immigrants, African Americans and Asians into the same organization. Indeed, many of its early members were immigrants, and some, like Carlo Tresca, Joe Hill and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, rose to prominence in the leadership. Finns formed a sizeable portion of the immigrant IWW membership. "Conceivably, the number of Finns belonging to the I.W.W. was somewhere between five and ten thousand."[16] The Finnish-language newspaper of the IWW, Industrialisti, published out of Duluth, Minnesota, was the union's only daily paper. At its peak, it ran 10,000 copies per issue. Another Finnish-language Wobbly publication was the monthly Tie Vapauteen ("Road to Freedom" . Also of note was the Finnish IWW educational institute, the Work People's College in Duluth, and the Finnish Labour Temple in Port Arthur, Ontario which served as the IWW Canadian administration for several years. One example of the union's commitment to equality was Local 8, a longshoremen's branch in Philadelphia, one of the largest ports in the nation in the WWI era. Led by the African American Ben Fletcher, Local 8 had over 5,000 members, the majority of whom were African American, along with more than a thousand immigrants (primarily Lithuanians and Poles), Irish Americans, and numerous others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World
I agree with you cascadiance. Populism is about people power, and left wing populism wants to lift every working man and woman up, regardless of race.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)YES, I just indicated that in certain contexts, populism can be used for bad things. But in most national contexts, where we are talking about a majority of Americans, populism in my book is a good thing. We have the bill of rights to protect us from most of the bad populist things.
But if we try to write off "populism" as bad, just because in a few instances where you have some communities run by crazy white people, then you write off one more means of us all organizing against the REAL problem of the U.S., which is the growing oligarchic FASCISM which is taking over, that needs populism to fight it, not only from us on the left, but many on the right that are just as unhappy with the corporate crap their party is using to screw with their jobs, etc. too.
We might not agree with many Republicans on many social issues, but we need to come together to get back our system of democracy that is going to need a POPULIST approach, not a "left wing" or "right wing" approach which is what the oligarchs are happy making any issue that is talked about in to, so that they don't have to deal with the big issues where THEY are the "extremists" against the well being of all Americans.
Some might try to say that many issues like H-1B visa can be "bad populism" of rejecting immigrants. I personally LIKE working with immigrants here, which is one reason I moved to the west coast from the midwest so that I could be in a more diverse community. But, just because H-1B has more immigrants coming in to work here, doesn't mean it is good for either American workers or the workers it is supposed to help get jobs here. It is bad for BOTH of us! They are brought here under indentured servant (slave) conditions, where they should be allowed to work here with green cards, and have more of an even playing field with us to encourage greater salaries for all of us, and not encourage a race to the bottom that the oligarchs want to use "guest worker" programs to do.
We have to be clear when taking a populist approach that we are working for a majority of Americans, and that we aren't looking to use it as a means to push any group of people already suffering as an oppressed group further down the ladder as a part of that effort, that some groups do. Now we might want to oppress more the billionaires in our actions, but given that they've been oppressing us, I think getting some ways of correcting that situation, if it can be called "oppression" is justified.
If we focus on areas that we have common ground with everyone, and don't try to just define it as "left", then we'll be able to get the numbers to force change. We should be clear to those on the right that we aren't endorsing many of their right wing viewpoints, any more than they should endorse some of our more left wing viewpoints on some issues, but that we should focus on those issues that aren't really left/right but 99% vs. 1%. If we have a good democratic system, perhaps we can work out our differences later in a more civilized way, rather than one group trying to force their ways on someone else.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)I was merely pointing out that right wing populism (what the OP is describing) is an entirely different animal than left wing populism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_populism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism
I, for one, want to have nothing to do with the racist right wing populism of figures like Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump or any of the Tea Party idiots no matter how uphill a battle this election is going to be.
But thank you for your thoughtful post.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... which is what our corporate controlled media likes to focus giving attention to, so that we can be divided when it comes to this form of "populism". What the corporate media doesn't want to give attention to is what some may call "left wing populism" that is more focused on economic issues, as that is where the populism can be used to fight oppression by the corporate state.
Though I think there is overlap between what many on the right call populism and what many on the left call populism.
There are many right wing folks just as concerned about the effects of the TPA and TPP bills, and those colluding in congress didn't have "left" or "right" wing ideology hats on when they voted on these bills. They had their corporatist hats on when they voted for them. TPA and TPP is an example of where a populist approach (and not an approach that is "left" or "right" was the proper approach to fight this form of extremism, which is power by the powerful few over the many).
I talked with a Republican who was protesting this, and he started to bring up the John Birch society, etc. and I stopped him, but noted that I was just as concerned about our loss of national sovereignty with the pending ISDS courts from this legislation as he might have been about the loss of national sovereignty that so many protested the creation of the UN and many of its structure was doing from the right side of the aisle earlier. That is a way to get some common understanding that both of us want the same thing... DEMOCRACY and an adherence to our constitution!!!
Thanks also for a more thoughtful conversation too.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It can be good or bad, just like democracy. In the case of LaFollette, Eugene Debs, and Sanders, etc, it's for the benefit of the populace.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)That seems like an odd conclusion.
Bryant
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun
noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Think about it.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)I should be mocked or held in contempt for suggesting that working class whites might be anti-Latino and anti-Muslim. This also implies that you don't believe that a signficant portion of working class whites are anti-Latino or anti-Muslim. Is that accurate?
Or are you just fucking around?
Bryant
Zorra
(27,670 posts)by anti-democratic elitists who want to paint working people as racist for political purposes.
Hate is not limited by class, race, gender, or religion, and Donald Trump is a perfect illustration of how an oligarch can be as hateful as any other hater.
MineralMan
(146,341 posts)discussion. It's not really a political point of view at all. It's simply the appeal to public support that both sides of the political equation have used for a very long time, as you so clearly pointed out.
Populism is simply a political strategy that is neither on the left or the right. Adolph Hitler was a populist - perhaps the most successful of all populists. We need to find a different term to use, I think.
Every politician who uses the phrase, "The people want" or "The American people want" is engaging in populist politics. None of those politicians is being accurate, since there is no unified will of the people in a nation of 300+ million people.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)us both FDR and George Wallace.It depends on who the populist is trying to appeal to.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Thank you.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Now, they might not be unified on all issues, but in these times, the power of the few over the many is unprecedented throughout most of our history. The resistance against this kind of power is by definition POPULIST!
Now, the Koch brothers and other corporate power mongers might try to find some way to split the population and say that some issues are "populist" over others, to try and direct away from the primary *populist* movement against them and their power, since they can't try to coopt or trash the term "populist" the way they have "liberal" and "progressive".
MineralMan
(146,341 posts)Using it in that way simply dilutes the meaning of a very useful word.
We live in what is more or less a democratic republic. Power in this nation has shifted right and left frequently due to the vote of the people. In many states, that vote is almost always for the right. In those places, "populism" favors the right. In other places, it favors the left.
It's simply the wrong word to use to describe a politician or political party. Virtually every politician uses "populism" as part of his or her campaign strategy. It's not a word that attaches to any particular political philosophy. It is a strategy. We should probably stop using it to refer to candidates, I think.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)The kind of power that they wield is antithetical to what is considered "populism", when it is the power of the few trying to control the many.
Yes, in some areas you can have a larger and more bigoted populace who's upset with state level or national level laws that try to prevent them from doing bad things controlling smaller populations in their domain too. Yes, I understand that notion of how populism can be bad in those cases.
But DO understand, and so many of us do, that Koch brothers and their ilk can't define a "Populist Policy Institute" to serve them and their interests the way their agents have defined the "Progressive Policy Institute", because it would be hard for an institute to have it's name have any meaning, if it is working for the power of the few over the many.
They need to try to corrupt the term "populist" in other ways, and they look to be doing it here, by trying to point out in some cases where populism is used in other contexts (DWARFED by the populist notion of fighting corporate power in our government that is its national meaning now).
Heck demographics are close to having the white people in this country no longer being a majority too, so white people controlling black people or minorities on a national level, even if ALL white people thought like the KKK (which they don't and to pose that they would is an insult to many of us white people too), can no longer be considered being "populist".
Now we do have white privilege, and that is something that populism (both people of color and those of us who are white who are concerned about the problems with white privilege) are now fighting with a populist endeavor to fix too.
Using the term populism can also help bring in the people on the right and other independents to unite to do things like get the "Move to Amend" constitutional amendment passed, which many of them want passed as well as those of us on the left to get rid of corporate personhood. The Move to Amend movement is a populist movement, and shouldn't be defined as a "left" movement, or we will lower the participation in it that is needed to fight oppressive power that it is trying to overturn.
MineralMan
(146,341 posts)In fact, they often are not interested in that at all. They use populist strategies to try to convince people to vote for them, and those strategies often work, whether what the politician represents will work in favor of the "people" or not. Misusing the word does not mean that the actual meaning of the word changes. It just indicates that the person misusing the word doesn't really understand what the word means. Populism is simply the strategy of appealing to the "people," whether the truth is told or not. It can work for good or evil, depending on who is using the strategy.
For example, Adolf Hitler appealed to the people by promoting the idea that Jews were responsible for the conditions that prevailed in Germany in the 1930s. Scapegoats are often used by populists to gain support from people in bad circumstances. Here in the US, the scapegoat group can be liberals, socialists, people of color, immigrants or whatever you please. Populism merely attempts to convince the population that the person promoting him or herself has their best interests as a high priority. That needn't be true for a populist to appeal to the "people." We have many groups of "people" in this country. Every campaign attempts to present a "populist" message. It's essential to win elections. Oligarchs and dictators are common users of populism as a strategy. Sometimes, they succeed, as we have all seen.
Ronald Reagan was a populist politician. That he won in a historic landslide is evidence of the effectiveness of his strategy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)But you knew that.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Yes, people can be lead in to BELIEVING certain activities, etc. will work in their favor and most others' favor FALSELY, and therefore be lead to work in large groups to facilitate such activities, but ultimately, the net effect of that "populism" is not helping most people the way people are manipulated in to doing such activities. Now if you believe majority segments of large groups of people will often do the wrong thing, then you are in effect saying that you don't believe in the system of democracy, where the will of the majority is believed to be a good thing inherently within the system. So if you want that, then you want a different party than the "Democratic" party, which believes in a system that basically boils populism in to it, as a way to make a government system work properly.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Your example of LaFollette is a good one. He used his popular appeal, his populist tendency of standing up for the working person against the banks and railroads, to do many good things. And one bad thing, eugenics. Populism makes a point of "sticking up for the average Joe," but the average Joe is sometimes racist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. and demands protection not just from the banks and corporations, but from his fellow citizens who don't look like him, or speak with an accent.
merrily
(45,251 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)I really don't think you're at all concerned about racism.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)How much of a priority thay are for you.
Can't be high up there if you're looking to take issue with people who give a shit.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)And "You people have it too good" is Hoyt's angle. So Recursion is trying a different angle.
So he's now claiming concerns about populists who were also racists, as if racism is an inherent property of populism. That way he can pretend his post is only about race when actually it's about supporting neoliberal economics.
Populism does not require racism. Just like racism does not require populism. There have been populists who were racists. There have been racists who were not populists. There have been populists who were not racists.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Blissfully unaware of what a raw deal it was for many Americans who were excluded.
Not she why you'd think this should be viewed as irrelevant?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)He's worried about populist economic policies. Post after post after post where he has supported free trade deals and supply-side economics (admittedly he isn't a supply-side fundamentalist like Paul Ryan). One of his favorite arguments was NAFTA did not hurt the US because unemployment did not soar the instant Clinton signed it.
So I don't think he's attacking populism out of concern for race. He's using race as an attack vector to advance his cause that is not stated in the OP.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)in honor of FDR.
It's mostly rich white Republican and Third Way conservative historical revisionists and their minions who use deceitful anti-New Deal propaganda to try to convince everyone that the New Deal was completely racist. Of course, rich white conservatives hate the New Deal, have always hated the New Deal, and therefore want people to think it was a terrible thing for America, because it helped the middle and working class gain power. In fact, the New Deal was primarily responsible for creating a long term Democratic party ruling political dynasty in the US. The New Deal is also primarily responsible for the overwhelming majority of African Americans historically voting Democratic.
So, should I believe what I see, or what a bunch of rich white conservatives tell me? I'll stop telling the truth about conservatives when they stop lying about everything.
Born in Cuthbert, Georgia as one of twelve children, Grier was named after Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was governor of New York at the time of Grier's birth and was elected president of the United States later that year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosey_Grier
Roosevelt "Roe" Williams, Jr. (born September 10, 1978 in Jacksonville, Florida) is a former American football cornerback of the National Football League. He was drafted by the Chicago Bears in the third round of the 2002 NFL Draft, 72nd overall. He received a football scholarship to Florida State University due to being academically ineligible he attended Tuskegee University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Williams_%28gridiron_football%29
Roosevelt "Rosey" Taylor (born July 4, 1937 in New Orleans, Louisiana) is a former American football safety who played for the Chicago Bears, San Francisco 49ers, and Washington Redskins of the National Football League. He played college football at Grambling State University.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Taylor
Roosevelt "Rosey" Brown, Jr. (October 20, 1932 June 9, 2004) was an American football offensive lineman in the National Football League for the New York Giants from 1953 to 1965.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosey_Brown
While it is true that Roosevelt, and the New Deal, were not perfect, the fact is, the New Deal made life better all around for most working and middle class Americans.
As we celebrate Black History Month and reflect on the decades of struggle that was required to bring the African American community into the mainstream of American life, it seems fair to ask what impact, if any, the New Deal had on the movement to secure equal rights for Blacks during the difficult years of the 1930s and beyond.
Judged from the standards of today, of course, there is much we can criticize about the New Deal/Roosevelt era. It did not bring to an end the tremendous injustices that African Americans had to suffer on a day-to-day basis, and some of its activities, such as the work of the Federal Housing Administration, served to build rather than break down the walls of segregation that separated black from white in Jim Crow America. Yet as Mary McLeod Bethune once noted, the Roosevelt era represented the first time in their history that African Americans felt that they could communicate their grievances to their government with the expectancy of sympathetic understanding and interpretation. Indeed, it was during the New Deal, that the silent, invisible hand of racism was fully exposed as a national issue; as a problem that at the very least needed to be recognized; as something the county could no longer pretend did not exist.
This shift in attitude, as Havard Sitkoff, the noted historian of the African American experience in the New Deal observes, helped propel the issue of race relations onto the national stage and usher in a new political climate in which Afro-Americans and their allies could begin to struggle with some expectation of success. In short, the New Deal, and the rhetorical support given to the cause of civil rights by both Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt gave the African American community hope; the chance to dream of a better future, no matter how difficult the struggle might be along the way.
It is also important to recognize that this hope was not merely based on empty promises of change, but on the actual words and deeds spoken by Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and taken by the federal government at a time when racism was deeply seared into the American psyche. With respect to the critical issue of employment, for example, we know that by 1935, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) was employing approximately 350,000 African Americans annually, about 15% of its total workforce. In the Civilian Conservation Corps, the percentage of blacks who took part climbed from roughly 3% at its outset in 1933 to over 11% by the close of 1938 with a total of more than 350,000 having been enrolled in the CCC by the time the program was shut down in 1942. The National Youth Administration, under the direction of Aubrey Williams, hired more black administrators than any other New deal agency; employed African American supervisors to oversee the work the agency was doing on behalf of black youth for each state in the south; and assisted more than 300,000 Africa American youth during the Depression. In 1934, the Public Works Administration (PWA) inserted a clause in all government construction contracts that established a quota for the hiring of black laborers based on the 1930 labor census and as a consequence a significant number of blacks received skilled employment on PWA projects.
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/african-americans-and-new-deal-look-back-history
Rex
(65,616 posts)"Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda."
Hannah Arendt
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: You liberate a city by destroying it. Words are used to confuse, so that at election time people will solemnly vote against their own interests."
Gore Vidal
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Or not racist at all, until I heard it here folks. Sounds pretty over simplistic to me.
Rex
(65,616 posts)no doubt.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Coughlin and Long both turned on him because the New Deal wasn't white supremacist enough.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Get your jabs in where you can.
By your own standards- doesn't this make you one of Sander's cutting and pasting minions? It would appear so.
I don't carry water for anyone myself. The bios are pretty dammed funny.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)In fact, it's a relatively recent phenomenon. AAs voted as a Republican bloc for almost 100 years. It was during the Civil Rights era, when the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy and welcomed the racists that AAs switched parties.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)eom
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Here's the game:
The 1% is attempting to paint populists as racist, in order to frighten minorities into going to the polls to vote for the the wealthy Third way corporatist Hillary Clinton in the primaries to defeat the illusionary populist devil they are creating.
Fortunately, for the rest of us, the 1%, in their arrogant, ivory tower elitism and sense of privilege are overlooking the fact that their childish attempts to frighten what they consider to be "ignorant dark skinned children" into voting for their chosen rich white corporatist candidate, are insulting as all hell to minority folks.
Minorities have long had to survive on their wits in a bullshit white world, and know what the rich white imperialist fucks are up to with their phony racism pitch propaganda.
It's sickening.
The 1% is afraid, very afraid...
Bernie Sanders moves to larger venue for Phoenix speech
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/07/16/bernie-sanders-phoenix-speech-larger-venue/30237471/
Rex
(65,616 posts)With friends like the OP, who needs enemies? Their concern trolling on this site is pathetic to watch, but the usual suspects chime in and make it amusing.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)MineralMan
(146,341 posts)But then...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,718 posts)"Fighting Bob" La Follette Sr. -good
George Walalce- bad
MineralMan
(146,341 posts)Which "people" a populist campaign appeals to is open to question. Populism can appeal to bigots or fair-minded people, and often does. Your examples are good ones, as were the examples in the OP. Hitler was a "populist," too. It's a strategy, not a political philosophy. Attempt to redefine the word are also commonplace.
Rex
(65,616 posts)that always support the 1% in whatever they do. Well amusing is more like the word I am trying to come up with. Just ignore them, they are the tiny minority here that the rest of us laugh out loud at.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I do know his posts do not favor the 99%.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)The sad games some play in GD.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Anyhoo. History can be difficult. But this is not unexpected
Trajan
(19,089 posts)By Hilary supporters in DU ...
Shameful but acting shameless ....
It's going to be a long primary season .. I intend to break it up with a number of meetings of Bernie supporters in Portland ....
We aren't in this to lose, especially to a cadre of deceivers ...
merrily
(45,251 posts)pop·u·list
ˈpäpyələst/
noun
noun: populist; plural noun: populists
1.
a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.
a person who holds, or who is concerned with, the views of ordinary people.
a member of the Populist Party, a US political party formed in 1891 that advocated the interests of labor and farmers, free coinage of silver, a graduated income tax, and government control of monopolies.
noun: Populist
adjective
adjective: populist
1.
of or relating to a populist or populists.
"a populist leader"
Origin
late 19th century: from Latin populus people + -ist.
Translate populist to
Use over time for: populist
Oh, look. Nothing about racism. Nothing about just pretending to care about ordinary people while really seeking to benefit the 1%.
The bs on this thread is even thicker than usual.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Passing the Civil Rights Act and Medicare, etc...?
merrily
(45,251 posts)I so appreciate your concern.
And aren't you cute, posting this in GD? We see you.
Some advice: sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you. Don't worry about the word "populism." It has a great defnition.
If your real worry is the word racism, worry about people who have engaged in racism and race baiting.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government rather than a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite.
pnwmom
(109,020 posts)that I can think of, anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/27/books/the-voice-of-resentment.html
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Just like when I say: listen to Black people, hopefully my readers know I don't mean Ben Carson. Assume good faith and consider the context. That said--
Most of our economic system was built on racism, so pursuing anti-racist legislation is tantamount to progressive economic policy, imo. Instead of a trickle-down from policies that largely benefit the white middle classes, our economy would probably do even better with policies that target institutional racism and support minority economic and social justice. It would trickle-up.
Like you said though, we still have the bigots to contend with.
romanic
(2,841 posts)JFC the paranoia is real up in here.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)racial attack in the diary about him that featured pictures such as the two police posing ith the black man as a hunting trophy.
So congrats for that, I guess.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)the rich.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)That poster and a couple of others too. They post like rubber stamps on any posts with economic populism as a theme in a desperate attempt to skew the discourse.
newblewtoo
(667 posts)why people think they own words or concepts by slapping on a party label.
Here is a great speech from Roosevelt (Teddy) given at the turn of the century after leaving the Republican party.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-famous-populist-speech-teddy-roosevelt-gave-right-after-getting-shot-2011-10
I have said before I think both Sanders and Trump are both riding a wave of populism and that neither will make it through the primary season. Trump may try to run as a "Bull Moose" (ending up looking more like Bullwinkle IMHO), Sanders has said he will not run a third party campaign.
Candidates may talk the talk but it is more important that they walk the walk once in office.
My first ever protest was against Wallace / Lemay while living down South. It was not a very 'popular' thing to do down there and taught me several valuable lessons: (1) Lots of people talk the talk. (2) Not so many show up to walk the walk. (3) Stay on camera if you are about to get your head bashed in. (4) Cops are not always your friend.