Do I need to remind you that the elites were against gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights? You recall that Obama ran a campaign AGAINST gay marriage? The Clintons too.
Your reframe is being rejected. Black Populism goes way back in our history. You can stop your racist reframe anytime. Don't let the shame get in your way, pal.
You fail, yet again, to realize that populism framing is unnecessary and actually damaging compared to positive reframing and ideological foundations FOR positive changes.
Populism is negative framing by definition. It is used by strategists because being against "whatever" leaves a person far more easy to manipulate and entice into questionable behaviors. Being "against" fueled January 6th. Being FOR led to the change that resulted in Obergefell v. Hodges.
You fail, yet again, to realize that good people organize to get good things done, sometimes against the odds. Your loyalty to a single ideology is strong. You get credit for that.
Populism is not exclusively negative framing. Populism is necessary. It works. It is core to our democracy and to the republic.
If we remove the interests of the majority, for powerbrokers and the elite, we will cease to be a great nation. The majority includes the great spectrum of people that we have in this country, with all our many many many differences. I refuse to accept that considering the interests of so many people is negative framing. You seem to want an elite power structure. I do not want that. I like the people. I like them a lot.
Inherently, no. It's a human rights movement. People who use pure people vs corrupt elite rhetoric to incite the masses may be using populist strategies to move it but it's cause is based on rights.
So, was the civil rights movement not a populist movement?
Coming back to the U.S. after time in South Africa, anger in the election is like a blast furnace. I'm also struck by the widespread use of populism as a framework of analysis.
"Trump and Sanders: Different Candidates with a Populist Streak," reported Chuck Todd on NBC News. Most reporters and commentators use "populism" to mean inflammatory rhetoric. Thus Jonathan Goldberg, writing in the National Review, argues Trump and Sanders are "Two Populist Peas in a Pod" stirring up "millions of people [who] are convinced that the system is rigged against them."
I learned in the civil rights movement that populism can be something very different. Great populist movements, from farmers' cooperatives of the 1880s to the popular movements of the Great Depression, embodied a politics of people's power that disciplined anger into a force for constructive change. In the process people gained the sense that they were making a democratic way of life, creating a sense of ownership and responsibility for the whole. Today, in contrast, many see democracy like a vending machine - and they don't like what they're getting.
Martin Luther King told me he identified with such populism in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964. Discussing possibilities for engaging poor whites as allies, he asked if I would try community organizing. As a result, I organized among Southern mill workers in Durham, North Carolina, from 1966 to 1972. We had some success in crossing the racial divide.
honor, you are wrong. The violence was used against the populists, not by them.
The Populist movement was a revolt by farmers in the South and Midwest against the Democratic and Republican Parties for ignoring their interests and difficulties. For over a decade, farmers were suffering from crop failures, falling prices, poor marketing, and lack of credit facilities. Many farmers were in debt due to a drought that affected the Midwest in the 1880s. At the same time, prices for Southern cotton dropped. These disasters, combined with resentment against railroads, money-lenders, grain-elevator owners, and others with whom farmers did business, led farmers to organize.
As a result, two organizations came into existence during this period: the segregated National Farmers' Alliance and the Colored Farmers' Alliance. Although they came to win some significant regional victories, the alliances achieved little influence on a national scale. By the 1890s, agrarian reformers refocused their energies and organized the new Populist, or People's Party. The Party called upon the federal government to buffer economic depressions, regulate banks and corporations, and help farmers who were suffering hard times. Farm workers
Sharecroppers at workIn 1892 the Populist presidential candidate, James B. Weaver, won more than 1,000,000 popular votes. The party elected several members to Congress, three governors, and hundreds of minor officials and legislators, nearly all in the Midwest. In the South, they challenged white supremacy by forming coalitions with black farmers in common cause. The coalitions won a number of elections in certain areas and captured the state of North Carolina in 1896 under the leadership of Marion Butler.
In Georgia, Tom Watson led the Populist revolt against the Democratic Party. Watson appealed to rural black voters by promising to respect their political and civil rights. Watson organized picnics, barbecues, and camp meetings and formed political clubs for blacks. But political cooperation did not mean socializing; blacks and whites sat separately when together. Yet that did not prevent them from cheering wildly when Watson spoke of their common plight: "You are made to hate each other because on that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded because you do not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system that beggars you both. The colored tenant is in the same boat as the white tenant, the colored laborer with the white laborer and that the accident of color can make no difference in the interests of farmers, croppers and laborers."
Using fraud and violence, and rallying support by appealing to white supremacy, the Democrats held on to their power in Georgia and other Southern states. Many Democrats refused to endanger white supremacy by voting against the Democratic Party. In 1896 the Populists fused into the Democratic Party. With the defeat of Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan and with the Democrats successfully launching white unity campaigns in the South, the Populists gradually disappeared as a political force.
Perhaps, honor, if you would cease to crap on populism, and learn something, you would see that the people are good.
The 1957 Civil Rights Act (CRA) was the first significant civil rights legislation adopted by the Congress since the end of Reconstruction. It was passed in the face of seemingly intractable disagreement and very long odds of success. Many otherwise liberal Democrats were still weak on civil rights, while many otherwise conservative Republicans were strong civil rights supporters. Within the political context of the New Deal, the Democratic Party’s coalition was held together by two contradictory policy goals: an economically liberal populist instinct combined with the corrupting political imperative of home rule for the white Southern wing of the party. The construction of majority support for the passage of the 1957 Act thus provides a preview of the New Deal Democratic Party’s demise, as well as its replacement with a new party system. The 1957 Act constitutes a watershed moment in the evolution of American politics, even though it failed to produce any dramatic change that would revolutionize the legal landscape of racial discrimination in the United States.
Perhaps, honor, if you would cease to crap on populism, and learn something, you would see that the people are good.
My comments aren't aimed at the people. They are aimed at the framing as inherently a conflict between the pure people on one side and the corrupt elites on the other. And that's a framing you confirm is your baseline each time you post as you do Yet you seem incapable of comprehending the nature of populism as a veneer applied to other ideologies and try to lay claim or assume those ideologies as your own.
Populism...your angry uncle's only true religion. Preach it, brother cultellus! Our salvation is nigh at hand!
Cultellus. I want to understand what you're saying. You're suggesting that BLM was a populist movement. You're also maintaining that their mantra of "defund the police" wasn't extreme. Additionally, you're pointing out that the BLM movement wasn't violent.
Do I have that right?
Is BLM not a populist movement?
I'm just trying to understand what you are saying.
If we remove the interests of the majority, for powerbrokers and the elite, we will cease to be a great nation. The majority includes the great spectrum of people that we have in this country, with all our many many many differences. I refuse to accept that considering the interests of so many people is negative framing. You seem to want an elite power structure. I do not want that. I like the people. I like them a lot.
Remember that one time you called me a liar for pointing out you frame the debate as being between populists and elitists when I noted those were two faces of the same coin whose ideological opposite was actually pluralism? Man, those were good times.
I'd also point out that one of the concepts of populism, expressed by cultellus, is the idea if one opposes populism one is advocating for elitism which feeds the binary view of populism.
Do I need to remind you that the elites were against gay marriage and other LGBTQ rights? You recall that Obama ran a campaign AGAINST gay marriage? The Clintons too.
Your reframe is being rejected. Black Populism goes way back in our history. You can stop your racist reframe anytime. Don't let the shame get in your way, pal.
Which is populism - folks promoting critical race theory, or folks expressing their rage about it in school board meetings?
