Populism is a two edged sword.

Just a reminder: Not all populism is a good thing. Ron Paul appeals to populist sentiment. So do some other repugnant figures. Just because a sentiment is widespread among the populace, doesn't make it a de facto good thing.

Hitler was a populist, as was Mussolini.

how both played on populist sentiments and how important that was to their getting the support of so many of their countrymen.

It's not truly progressive representatives who are the problem, but those who attempt to fool the unwashed masses.

It won't be as easy to fool the people today. Well, we can hope and pray.

thinking that there's some profound progressive wisdom inherent in the populace is a foolish thing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And remember, Hitler was elected too.

and then slither away with 'but it was a parliamentary system so his appointment was just like being elected'.

Point one. Having a movement behind you does not make you a populist. It's defined as "A supporter of the rights and power of the people." An extreme nationalist is pretty close to the opposite of that.

Point two. Hitler was not elected. He was appointed Chancellor, and he solidified his power base among the legislature in a crooked election. But he himself was never elected, fairly or not.

As are his followers. He has a few good things to say, but other than that he's breathing laughing gas.

nor does a sentiment have to be widespread in the populace for it to be a populist position.

Populism can indeed be progressive or reactionary, which is perhaps your point. What both progressive and reactionary populists have in common is a belief, that I share, in democracy, in democratic institutions, and in the rule of the people over rule by elites. All populists, either on the left or the right, are a threat to the elites who have run this planet for the last 300 years or so.

:-) :hi:

It is an appeal to the masses on the basis of whatever yearnings they may have. Hitler and Mussolini to Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Golly, EVERYTHING is a two-edged sword!

So what makes you pick this particular target for your milquetoast platitude?

That is, if the word populist even means anything. Since it's mostly applied by third parties to describe others (derogatorily!) who don't usually call themselves "populist." So it's always subject to debate.

So. Let's translate your OP for actual content:

(GENERAL, USUALLY DEROGATORY LABEL APPLIED LOOSELY BY OBSERVERS TO VARYING, SOMETIMES CONFLICTING PHENOMENA) is (UNSPECIFIED UNDESIRABLE QUALITY).

Then you go on to throw Ron Paul in as your example of "populist," which apparently is supposed to make others very worried that you might apply the same label to them.

For, by magic of your labelling it so, they'll be associated with Ron Paul! Even if they have nothing to do with him, because you determined that they both are "populists." Gasp!

Finally, has it occurred to you that what's wrong with Ron Paul is not that he's populist, but right wing?

So here's my response:

Everything to the RIGHT of me politically is (VAGUELY DEFINED UNDESIRABLE QUALITY).

Cali and Ron Paul are BOTH to the right of me politically.

Therefore Cali is like Ron Paul, and needs to stop being to the right of me politically, if she wants to get the stink of being associated with Ron Paul off of her.

Yeah Baby Slamdunk QED!!!

:thumbsup:

And your historical reminder noted, are you saying that all populist politics leads to totalitarianism?

Because the New Deal certainly does not fit that model.
Populism to me is a code word for small 'd' democracy
based on the interests of the working class.

Leadership in America is, to an extent the act of promoting the higher aspirations of the poor
while ameliorating their darker sensibilities.

That is easiest done when the laboring classes see their lot improving, and their needs being met.

:thumbsup: