The New Politiics -- what it means today and in the future.

[Hintergrund]

(08-26-2019, 09:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: As Boomers start being shoved into the nursing homes and start dying off in huge numbers, the world will get different in some ways.

ATM there's still a lot of influential Silents.

Also, nursing homes cost money too.

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-26-2019, 10:17 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:

(08-26-2019, 09:49 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: As Boomers start being shoved into the nursing homes and start dying off in huge numbers, the world will get different in some ways.

ATM there's still a lot of influential Silents.

Also, nursing homes cost money too.

Yup.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...the-former

The US is starting to resemble the USSR more and more each day. This on top of the general insanity we're bosotted with.

Gerontocracy , here we come.

[pbrower2a]

And the powerful increasingly sound like loan-sharks trying to get the loved ones of the defaulting gamblers that they killed to pay the gamblers' debts.

When will we learn?

[David Horn]

(08-26-2019, 01:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Using the word populism to describe right-wing propaganda and those who fall for it is inappropriate. Populism means restoring power to the people. Right wing "populism" appeals to the fears of the people so that their power can be taken away. It is not populism at all...

You are almost alone in believing that RW populism isn't what it clearly is: populism! In fact, most political scientists who study this believe that the ideological, self-centered version is far and away the most common type, and those characteristics are exactly what attracts believers to tyrants and autocrats of all stripes.

Populism is, by definition, emotional and anti-intellectual. People functioning on emotion tend to be lead by the strong emotions: hate and fear. Love and the other softer emotions don't have the impact, and tend to need intellectual bolstering to be viable.

[pbrower2a]

(08-27-2019, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-26-2019, 01:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Using the word populism to describe right-wing propaganda and those who fall for it is inappropriate. Populism means restoring power to the people. Right wing "populism" appeals to the fears of the people so that their power can be taken away. It is not populism at all...

You are almost alone in believing that RW populism isn't what it clearly is: populism!  In fact, most political scientists who study this believe that the ideological, self-centered version is far and away the most common type, and those characteristics are exactly what attracts believers to tyrants and autocrats of all stripes.

Populism is, by definition, emotional and anti-intellectual.  People functioning on emotion tend to be lead by the strong emotions: hate and fear.  Love and the other softer emotions don't have the impact, and tend to need intellectual bolstering to be viable.

Do we really have any left-wing populism in America?

[David Horn]

(08-27-2019, 05:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-27-2019, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-26-2019, 01:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Using the word populism to describe right-wing propaganda and those who fall for it is inappropriate. Populism means restoring power to the people. Right wing "populism" appeals to the fears of the people so that their power can be taken away. It is not populism at all...

You are almost alone in believing that RW populism isn't what it clearly is: populism!  In fact, most political scientists who study this believe that the ideological, self-centered version is far and away the most common type, and those characteristics are exactly what attracts believers to tyrants and autocrats of all stripes.

Populism is, by definition, emotional and anti-intellectual.  People functioning on emotion tend to be lead by the strong emotions: hate and fear.  Love and the other softer emotions don't have the impact, and tend to need intellectual bolstering to be viable.

Do we really have any left-wing populism in America?

I think Bernie Sanders is a LW populist, though he may be a solo act.  Elizabeth Warren, his closest ideological match, seems to be a more traditional though certainly LW candidate. You might argue that AOC and the Squad are also populists, but they seem to be more SJW crusaders than populists.  I can't think of any others.

[Eric the Green]

(08-27-2019, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-26-2019, 01:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Using the word populism to describe right-wing propaganda and those who fall for it is inappropriate. Populism means restoring power to the people. Right wing "populism" appeals to the fears of the people so that their power can be taken away. It is not populism at all...

You are almost alone in believing that RW populism isn't what it clearly is: populism!  In fact, most political scientists who study this believe that the ideological, self-centered version is far and away the most common type, and those characteristics are exactly what attracts believers to tyrants and autocrats of all stripes.

Populism is, by definition, emotional and anti-intellectual.  People functioning on emotion tend to be lead by the strong emotions: hate and fear.  Love and the other softer emotions don't have the impact, and tend to need intellectual bolstering to be viable.

If people say I'm alone, so be it. It's very common for common opinion to be wrong.

That definition assumes that the common people have no sense, and that populism is appealing to those characteristics of the population. I think that's selling the people short. There is no elite that is any more intellectual or capable of sensible appeals to good policy than the rest of the population. 

The intellectuals are if anything more prone to be taken away by emotion. Being consumed by reactive fear is as much or more a brain thing as a gut thing, and intellectuals have zero defense against it. The intellect has no power and is not an organ of love.

But of course, it's the intellectuals who have ownership of the organs of public discourse, so their prejudice against the common people comes out in their use of terms.

[Eric the Green]

(08-28-2019, 01:49 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-27-2019, 05:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(08-27-2019, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(08-26-2019, 01:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Using the word populism to describe right-wing propaganda and those who fall for it is inappropriate. Populism means restoring power to the people. Right wing "populism" appeals to the fears of the people so that their power can be taken away. It is not populism at all...

You are almost alone in believing that RW populism isn't what it clearly is: populism!  In fact, most political scientists who study this believe that the ideological, self-centered version is far and away the most common type, and those characteristics are exactly what attracts believers to tyrants and autocrats of all stripes.

Populism is, by definition, emotional and anti-intellectual.  People functioning on emotion tend to be lead by the strong emotions: hate and fear.  Love and the other softer emotions don't have the impact, and tend to need intellectual bolstering to be viable.

Do we really have any left-wing populism in America?

I think Bernie Sanders is a LW populist, though he may be a solo act.  Elizabeth Warren, his closest ideological match, seems to be a more traditional though certainly LW candidate. You might argue that AOC and the Squad are also populists, but they seem to be more SJW crusaders than populists.  I can't think of any others.

I think in this post you are nearer the truth. I think you could say Warren and AOC are populists, because they appeal to the people to take back their power. That's the real definition of populist. The real definition stems from the party that invented it, back in the birthtime of our own era. But Sanders is the best match and AOC does have the SJW aspect and Warren does have traditional political links too.

[Eric the Green]

The real populist. He lies at the root of our era, and started the movement that made our era what it is:

James B Weaver

What did he "appeal" to?

[Anthony '58]

(08-25-2019, 03:20 PM)David Horn Wrote: Should it though?  Religion can be revolutionary.  Is this an emerging time of change, where the social gospel gets dusted off, and the clergy become social justice leaders?  It can play that way again, but it's a long shot.

Not so long a shot with Francis as Pope - a situation I predicted, except that I was one country off (I predicted that a new Pope would come from Brazil, but would be a national liberal just the same: Francis has not budged on either abortion or assisted suicide).