General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPaul Krugman- Populism, Real and Phony
Authoritarians with an animus against ethnic minorities are on the march across the Western world. They control governments in Hungary and Poland, and will soon take power in America. And theyre organizing across borders: Austrias Freedom Party, founded by former Nazis, has signed an agreement with Russias ruling party and met with Donald Trumps choice for national security adviser.
But what should we call these groups? Many reporters are using the term populist, which seems both inadequate and misleading. I guess racism can be considered populist in the sense that it represents the views of some non-elite people. But are the other shared features of this movement addiction to conspiracy theories, indifference to the rule of law, a penchant for punishing critics really captured by the populist label?
Still, the European members of this emerging alliance an axis of evil? have offered some real benefits to workers. Hungarys Fidesz party has provided mortgage relief and pushed down utility prices. Polands Law and Justice party has increased child benefits, raised the minimum wage and reduced the retirement age. Frances National Front is running as a defender of that nations extensive welfare state but only for the right people.
Trumpism is, however, different. The campaign rhetoric may have included promises to keep Medicare and Social Security intact and replace Obamacare with something terrific. But the emerging policy agenda is anything but populist.
more
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/opinion/populism-real-and-phony.html
JHan
(10,173 posts)but their absolutism. The populist will always target the establishment and will break tradition, abuse power for the sake of pushing their causes or beliefs which they believe to be absolutely right and they also don't care about separation of powers.
fitting this is the year of hamilton, because he warned us:
"Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves. Of this kind is the doctrine of disqualification, disfranchisement and banishment by acts of legislature. The dangerous consequences of this power are manifest. If the legislature can disfranchise any number of citizens at pleasure by general descriptions, it may soon confine all the votes to a small number of partizans, and establish an aristocracy or an oligarchy; if it may banish at discretion all those whom particular circumstances render obnoxious, without hearing or trial, no man can be safe, nor know when he may be the innocent victim of a prevailing faction. The name of liberty applied to such a government would be a mockery of common sense.
http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0314
gulliver
(13,195 posts)People are sick of one another's freedoms, their own growing economic insecurity, and being driven crazy by their screens. So they are deliberately letting the wolves into the house. It's like calling in an airstrike on your own position.