Completely opinionated take: all forms of populism is directly correlated to levels of inequality of wealth in the economy and level of standard of living of the bottom 50%. Everything else is just manifestations of frustration with one’s own situation.
randomNumber7 · 3h ago
If suddenly a big part of the population turns towards populists this is probably the reason.
aredox · 6h ago
And at the same time populism worsens inequality and isn't punished for it (it gets away with making the elections just a little bit "unfair", it doesn't need full totalitarian control over them and can keep the opposition alive on not-too-tight a leash). Which is the most terrifying thing: it is a self-renforcing loop.
lazyeye · 5h ago
Seems like its been a "self-reinforcing loop" for decades...
Corollary to that though: is it actual wealth inequality, or the perception of wealth inequality?
zpeti · 5h ago
Can someone explain to me how populism is different to democracy?
I know what the mainstream answer to this is, but fundamentally, if you are pro democracy, how can you be against the choice of the majority of the people?
zajio1am · 3h ago
Democracy is not sacred. It is just a way to organise society. It has some advantages and it is likely the best way we know, but that does not mean we should be silent about its disadvantages, and populism is just a fail mode of democracy, or a strategy to exploit its weaknesses.
Populism is not 'doing what people want', it is a strategy of orienting a societal/political conflict on people vs. elites axis. But elites are usually right, that is why they are elites in their social hierarchies. For democracies to work properly, people have to trust elites (and elites have to be trustworthy).
popra · 5h ago
What if the choice of the majority of the people is anti-democratic?
It would seem that that would make you anti-democratic while trying to be pro democracy.
randomNumber7 · 3h ago
There is a great article of german philosopher Leonard Nelson that discusses this (and other) weaknesses of democracy. He was thrown out of the SPD for it in s.th. like the 1920s
mdp2021 · 4h ago
> populism [vs] democracy
"Democracy" is a system (relative delegation of power to masses), "populism" is a drive (attempting the seduction of masses through visceral calls). Not the same plane.
> pro democracy, how can you be against the choice of the majority of the people
"Democracy" does not reduce to "accepting any will of any majority". An economy, in classical theory, fails if a base of informed rational agents is not built. Similarly, the "choice of the people" is theoretical, potential, ideal.
lazyeye · 5h ago
Populism is a democratic mandate you don't like.
And I guess it's also where a politicians lies are more simple, direct which apparently is MUCH WORSE than the more sophisticated, poll-driven lies of the establishment politician's PR hacks.
like_any_other · 4h ago
It's very simple. They pretend they're using democracy to mean "rule of the people", but the meaning they're actually using is "policy outcomes that I like".
That's why parties can do the opposite of what they promised [1,2], judges can issue wildly creative rulings [3], even directly contrary to referendums [4], universities can demand ideological loyalty oaths [5], a party can get 37% of votes but only 20% of seats [6], or even 14.3% of votes and only 0.77% of seats, newspapers can get banned [8], towns can be fined for not participating in mandatory celebrations [9], and activists can even be prevented from leaving their own countries to attend a political summit, despite EU free movement [10], and there's not a peep about endangering democracy or authoritarianism.
Don't take my word for it - here's German chancellor Olaf Scholz admitting it in a slip of honesty: As a strong democracy we are very clear: The extreme right should be out of political decision making processes. - https://xcancel.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1890709875644145935
No, you're muddying the waters by conflating the terms as if they apply to the same dimension. Democracy does mean "rule of the people". But populism means those people being taken in by overly simplistic gut-appealing messages. Of course, it is generally hard to judge this objectively. But often the people end up choosing leaders that directly oppose what those same people claim to want, in which case the failure is clear.
For example look at the current dynamic in the US. Hefty and unpredictable import taxes are harming the domestic industries we still have left. But when you try to point this out to the average populist, they go right into the refrain about how we need to compete with China, like nobody else understands this goal or something. They're basically stuck on the simplistic gut-appealing mantra, and can't get past it to entertain criticism how the current policies are doing the exact opposite as being claimed.
pessimizer · 6h ago
Brain dead garbage that could have been generated by AI, one of a vast literature that attempts to make popular sovereignty seem like a mental illness rather than the only non-supernatural justification for government at all.
They selected a few strongmen, as designated by the CIA, to illustrate their points: Italy, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Brazil, and Argentina. Only while the CIA disapproves of them, though. The CIA always changes their minds about them at exactly the same time they make a break with their past and announce that their country is open for foreign investment. Al Qaeda leaders in expensive suits.
Anti-establishment populists, the "good" kind, are represented by the organizations that employ people to write garbage like this, and whose primary messaging is that power can be wielded by loving and believing hard enough, and that everyone who does anything to threaten any institution is completely dominated and motivated by hate, cynicism, or ambition. We don't hate them, we love them, so to help them they should be under mandatory therapy; and to protect us, maybe that therapy should be done in a prison.
dash2 · 7h ago
Beware of Frontiers In... journals. They do not have a great reputation.
JumpCrisscross · 6h ago
> Beware of Frontiers In... journals. They do not have a great reputation
Could you substantiate that? The abstract looks compelling, but I don't want to waste time if this is a trash journal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni...
I know what the mainstream answer to this is, but fundamentally, if you are pro democracy, how can you be against the choice of the majority of the people?
Populism is not 'doing what people want', it is a strategy of orienting a societal/political conflict on people vs. elites axis. But elites are usually right, that is why they are elites in their social hierarchies. For democracies to work properly, people have to trust elites (and elites have to be trustworthy).
It would seem that that would make you anti-democratic while trying to be pro democracy.
"Democracy" is a system (relative delegation of power to masses), "populism" is a drive (attempting the seduction of masses through visceral calls). Not the same plane.
> pro democracy, how can you be against the choice of the majority of the people
"Democracy" does not reduce to "accepting any will of any majority". An economy, in classical theory, fails if a base of informed rational agents is not built. Similarly, the "choice of the people" is theoretical, potential, ideal.
And I guess it's also where a politicians lies are more simple, direct which apparently is MUCH WORSE than the more sophisticated, poll-driven lies of the establishment politician's PR hacks.
That's why parties can do the opposite of what they promised [1,2], judges can issue wildly creative rulings [3], even directly contrary to referendums [4], universities can demand ideological loyalty oaths [5], a party can get 37% of votes but only 20% of seats [6], or even 14.3% of votes and only 0.77% of seats, newspapers can get banned [8], towns can be fined for not participating in mandatory celebrations [9], and activists can even be prevented from leaving their own countries to attend a political summit, despite EU free movement [10], and there's not a peep about endangering democracy or authoritarianism.
Don't take my word for it - here's German chancellor Olaf Scholz admitting it in a slip of honesty: As a strong democracy we are very clear: The extreme right should be out of political decision making processes. - https://xcancel.com/Bundeskanzler/status/1890709875644145935
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67506641
[2] https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/05/23/irony-labour-mea...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...
[5] https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_French_legislative_electi...
[7] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jul...
[8] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-bans-right-wing...
[9] https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ontario-town-fined-10000-fo...
[10] https://www.jpost.com/international/article-854322
For example look at the current dynamic in the US. Hefty and unpredictable import taxes are harming the domestic industries we still have left. But when you try to point this out to the average populist, they go right into the refrain about how we need to compete with China, like nobody else understands this goal or something. They're basically stuck on the simplistic gut-appealing mantra, and can't get past it to entertain criticism how the current policies are doing the exact opposite as being claimed.
They selected a few strongmen, as designated by the CIA, to illustrate their points: Italy, Hungary, Poland, Spain, Brazil, and Argentina. Only while the CIA disapproves of them, though. The CIA always changes their minds about them at exactly the same time they make a break with their past and announce that their country is open for foreign investment. Al Qaeda leaders in expensive suits.
Anti-establishment populists, the "good" kind, are represented by the organizations that employ people to write garbage like this, and whose primary messaging is that power can be wielded by loving and believing hard enough, and that everyone who does anything to threaten any institution is completely dominated and motivated by hate, cynicism, or ambition. We don't hate them, we love them, so to help them they should be under mandatory therapy; and to protect us, maybe that therapy should be done in a prison.
Could you substantiate that? The abstract looks compelling, but I don't want to waste time if this is a trash journal.
That was my first encounter with Frontiers Media, but they have a...history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Media#Controversies