968
submitted 8 months ago by naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 47 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

How? No way 75% of the states would agree.

By electing sane politicians and not a bunch of weak populists who bend for the loudest rightwingnuts...

[-] BioDriver@beehaw.org 10 points 8 months ago

Sir this is a Wendy’s

[-] clgoh@lemmy.ca 8 points 8 months ago

Ok. Start with Mississippi.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

Faux populists, populists are actually cool

[-] Gabu@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago

No, they're not. Populism as a whole is a horrible political strategy which benefits only a few members of the political class.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

Populism is literally focusing on the masses. Now elitists use it as a pejorative to refer to fascists when fascists are also elitist with faux populist rhetoric.

[-] Gabu@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago

No, populism is a focus on electorally beneficial short term goals. Has been so since always. Political decisions taken with the intent and plan of benefitting the populous are simply called a "good political administration".

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago

Political decisions taken with the intent and plan of benefitting the populous are simply called a “good political administration”.

That's populism.

[-] go_go_gadget@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No, populism is a focus on electorally beneficial short term goals.

I mean I've heard people accuse Bernie of being a populist but I don't think he's focused on short term goals. Are they using the term wrong?

[-] Gabu@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

Quite clearly, yes. Bernie may rely on populism more than a hardline socialist, but as a relative metric against his rivals, he's not even close to a populist.

[-] JayDee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Populism is simply a political strategy where you appeal to the 'common voter.' It is neither good nor bad.

Pro-Union efforts are populist. So are most socialist movements.

The Nazis also ran on a populist campaign. As is Trump right now.

Stating a movement is populist is an in-the-moment observation. I would argue that trying to sort 'true populists' who are actually trying to help their supporter base from 'faux-populists' fundamentally misuses the term, which is simply noting who the politician is trying to appeal to.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago
[-] JayDee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Encyclopedia britannica:

political program or movement that champions, or claims to champion, the common person, usually by favourable contrast with a real or perceived elite or establishment. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established liberal, socialist, and labour parties.

Wikipedia asserts a similar definition

History.com again corroborates this:

The style of politics that claims to speak for ordinary people and often stirs up distrust has risen up on both sides of the political spectrum throughout U.S. history.

Your definition is objectively not what the general populace means when they say 'populism'.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

The brilliant minds behind ancient aliens have spoken people! Throw in the towel!

This is amusing, thank you for sharing.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

or claims to champion, the common person

That seems to be the type of populists we have in the current decade.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 8 months ago

Populists just tell you what you want to hear so they get power. There's no intention to follow through.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yes but this continues to be true. The top level poster implied that at some point is was true, but it is no longer true. It's never been reasonably possibly in the us and nothing has changed recently to make it meaningfully less possible.

[-] ShadowRam@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah, that isn't going to work, because either

  1. !>25% of your population doesn't believe women have that right

or

  1. Your countries existing laws give too much voting power to a minority
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
968 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32286 readers
447 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS