like GA-06

2016 Republican voters switched to the Dem.

don't think this suburban asshole district would likely vote for a Democratic populist.

But I think nationwide, yes it is the answer.

Hey - we think y'all are suburban assholes - vote for us!

Amazing that you dispense such incisive analysis at no charge.



-app

The solution is for Democrats not to hype up these races as if they were a horse race. They need to use the element of surprise. They should use the unpopularity of Trump to defeat these incompetent Republicans. They have a much better propaganda and ad campaign than Democrats and are much more effective at rallying their troops when they feel threatened or when they need them.

We have a "populist" in the White House.

Populism sees the ''State" as the adversary that stands between the "leader" and the "people".

In our case, it is the "State" that protects us from any leader assuming absolute power.

This is why Putin supports "populist" movements, they weaken democratic institutions, and he is absolutely delighted with his "populist" president right now.

It can be right wing libertarian populism where the elites are identified as "the state" and it can be authoritarian where the remedy is a strongman, e.g. Trump. it can be centrist promising reform of a corrupt system as for example Perot. It can also be left wing as in La Follette and the Progressive Party in the early 1900s or Occupy in recent times or the Sanders campaign in 2016.

But they lost too.

I wish people clamoring for populism would have a look at historical figures considered populists: Peron, Vargas, the Longs, etc....

populism isn't really about left-right politics as people like buchanan and trump fit into that shit. but it does have a lot to do with appealing to white voters in this country .

Nationalism seems to be key to it these days.

and ruined it.

In my opinion, Ossoff was forced to do a Third Way campaign, proving that it still does not work.

When in human history has populists coming to power every turned out well?

Instead, populism has the blood of millions on its ilelogogical hands.

Shudder that such as vile ideology is seen bys some as an "answer." It is not.

.

In negotiations, you don't start out by giving up half of your position, especially when the opposing side is rigid.

Pragmatism might have worked to some degree a few decades ago, but is impractical in todays political climate.

.

Did my post glorify Pol Pot, Mao, or Stalin somehow? No. Besides, they might have used populist rhetoric, but they (and all those whom you state have "the blood of millions on its ilelogogical hands&quot were authoritarians first and foremost, with populism not much more than window dressing.

It was populism, that crazy notion that a leader should hear and echo the needs and wants of the voting public, which advanced civil rights, a social safety net, better workplace conditions, and many more good and necessary causes.

-app

Last edited Wed Jun 21, 2017, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

FDRs greatest enemy on the Left was populist Huey Long whose "Share the Wealth" rhetoric was the 1930s version of Our Revolution. FDR considered Huey Long one of the most dangerous people in politics.

Populists (right or left) need scapegoats to rail against as the cause of all society's ills. They whip up anger toward these scapegoats as a simple answer to complex problems. Populists also rely on creating fear.

In contrast, FDR told us we have nothing to fear but fear itself. That is an anti-populist message, friend.

Today's populists on the left tell us "ask what your country can do for you," and (for goodness sakes) never ask what supporters what they might do for their country.

Populists have the direct opposite ideology of JFK.

Stirring fear, anger, and hate while promising people that they won't have to work or make sacrifices to be showered with benefits is pure demagoguery.

You've dodged the question of when populism has turned out well because the answer is NEVER.

FDR could speak to the people, and articulate ideas that appealed to the masses, convincing them that their lives could improve via collective and public action. That's populism.

But it's true that FDR also had Huey Long as a convenient bogeyman. He could say to the banksters of his day, "Play nice with me, or you'll be forced to grapple with Long's mob." That was indeed a useful foil at times.

Whereas here, you're saying that 1950's, Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower-type economic policies are so scary and radical that they deserve no place at the Democratic table. How very progressive of you. I'm sure the voters will come flocking...



-app

In fact he sent unemployment soaring when he balanced the budget in 37, he interred the Japanese...he was not a populist...he developed programs for people who were literally starving...there is evidence that has been hidden from us (should be out soon) that as many as five million people starved or died of complications of malnutrition between 1929 and 1933. People wanted someone to save them...the GOP had done little. You simply must let go of the idea that Roosevelt is relevant today in terms of election wins or losses...he is not. Roosevelt became a liberal because he had to...he was against unionization of government workers too. Social security was developed to save the lives of the elderly who had lost everything...necessity is the mother of invention.

and not to engage in class warfare.

Huey Long wasn't just a "bogeyman," he was a dangerous nativist/populist demogogue of the sort we Democrats need to resist just as much today as FDR did in the 1930s.

Never has a populist revolution gone well. Why latch onto the bloodiest and most morally repugnant ideology in human history as a model for the future? It boggles the mind what a wrong-head approach you are advocating.

Populism is anti-Liberal. Liberalism is based on reason. Political anger, scapegoating, and demagoguery are the enemies of reason.

There is no protection for the rights of minorities in populism.

"Putin’s other characteristics also appeal to populist sentiment. Strong leadership is admired by populists because it is seen as necessary to counter the equally strong vested interests that stand between the people and the exercise of their will. Putin shares their debased view of what democracy really means: tapping into the simple, unified will of the people and executing it. For populists, majority support mandates absolute rule, and even Putin’s strongest critics accept that he has, for most of his tenure at least, commanded the support of the majority in Russia."

https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58506581e4b0ee009eb41e14/amp

And Obama ran as a liberal ...not really a moderate. And Obama is pro-choice as well...civil rights are not election fodder. I dsiagree with the entire article.

In fact, the article explicitly states that continuing forward with a strong civil rights platform is both morally correct, and necessary to hold the Democratic voting base together. The FAIR article I posted lambasts Jonathan Chait for advocating that Democrats should 'get over their “moral commitments to social justice.”

Instead, the FAIR article advocates that Democrats expand their base by offering true and meaningful economic reforms.

-app

article. Also Jon Ossoff backed minimum wage increases etc...and still lost to Handel...and Mello, ETAL...those that Sen.Sanders endorsed all ran on economic populism...and lost in red states...so not much real world evidence.

And all the other Sanders endorsed Democrats as well. I would suggest that Democrats consider jobs as what they need to focus on...the Mid West where I live lost millions of good paying jobs over the last couple of decades and were told ...the jobs aren't coming back and to retrain for non-existent jobs...trade is a mess...and the GOP won on that issue...they won't fix it but...that is why they won. We need a real plan for creating good paying jobs and stopping the export of jobs...I think that is the biggest issue. When both parties agreed about Trade...there was little choice...but Trump saw this opening and took advantage of it. This could lead to huge wins for us if we wrest it away from his small thick fingered hands.

We'll never know whether the Quist election would have turned out differently had the Democratic Party supported Quist with even a meaningful fraction of the funds they poured into the Ossoff campaign.

-app

seems to work for republicans. Why not try it? After all, we're supposed to be the Big Tent. Republican have to appeal to idiots because there aren't enough rich people to make it work. The Democrats should appeal to idiots because there just aren't enough smart people.

We already know you can lie and it works. The Democrats get accused of lying anyway, so why worry about telling the truth?