Huge Win for Biden Today

[honorentheos]

I think it is hateful and hurtful to judge people as extreme because they do not pick one or the other ideological side, especially the ideological sides you are offering as options. Neither of your options are ideal,

I see your confusion. Nothing above is about being a populist. People can be disinterested or even disgusted by politics in general or specifically in regards to the political parties available in the US. I'm not judging a person who doesn't take sides. My voter reg card states I'm an independent.

But that's not populism. Here is your own point on the subject:

Being a populist is not politically oppositional, it is oppositional to the elites.

This is a political identity now where what we were discussing above is not. What's it based on? Opposition. You say it isn't political opposition but rather opposition towards elites but it implicitly defines elites as those that are failing to govern in the interest of the people. It's an anti-party political identity based on opposition. And it is extreme. It has no political ideology that can be coolly and logically discussed in a political science context. It is instead purely given form when people feel slighted by their government and want change but don't imagine that to be feasible through the mechanisms of democracy as currently constituted.

[Cultellus]

It has no political ideology that can be coolly and logically discussed in a political science context. It is instead purely given form when people feel slighted by their government and want change but don't imagine that to be feasible through the mechanisms of democracy as currently constituted.

This is absolute nonsense. This is so far into the weeds of nonsense. This belief, and it is a belief and not a fact, is part of your ideology and revisionism - like a typical holocaust denier.

It took me about three seconds to find research examples that refute, rather emphatically, your revisionist and gaslighting claim here. Getyershit together, honor.

Populism is an anti-establishment, anti-elite ideology and political strategy. Populism as an ideology adopts a discursive approach and focuses on the tensions between the “pure people” and the “corrupt elite.” The “people” can be subsumed into three discursive frames: the nation, the (economic) underdog, and the ordinary people (Canovan 1981, cited under Theoretical Approaches). The narrative of the people as a “nation” is hostile to migrants and ethnic minorities. The populist rhetoric of the “underdog’’ expresses anxieties related to economic differences. Finally, the language of the “ordinary people” resonates with visions of a simple, everyday life. Populism viewed as a political strategy focuses on its agency, or the ability of populist movements to instrumentally appeal to followers, to maintain a direct relationship between the leader and the followers, and to exploit existing institutional weaknesses. Populists target the establishment and the elites selectively. Populists can become the elite. Yet populist politicians (re)elected to office continue to use anti-elite appeals to delegitimize opponents, even after they have come to represent the very establishment they had attacked in the past. Scholarship on populism has grown exponentially in recent years. In Europe, it is rooted in the study of the radical right, which emphasizes exclusionary identity-driven politics. The rise of populism is often viewed as a consequence of an economic crisis or socioeconomic changes in general. Populist critique also targets the institutional underpinnings of liberal democracy. Populists seek to strengthen majoritarian elements of democracy and undermine minority protections. Populist leaders seek power, and the presence of populist parties in the electoral arena, parliament, government, or presidency reshapes political agendas. Media is a crucial tool of communication used by populist leaders to gain power and to stay in power. Social media, in particular, allows populists to establish and maintain a direct communication channel to their supporters, and populists accuse traditional media of being “corrupt.” Populists are omnipresent. In the West, populism is mostly exclusionary. In the Global South, and especially in Latin America, it is often inclusionary, as it broadens the scope of the people to the previously politically excluded poor and indigenous communities (Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser 2013, cited under General Overviews). Regionally, this bibliography focuses on populism in Europe and Latin America, but it also includes the United States and other countries (Stockemer 2019, under General Overviews).

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vi ... 3-0300.xml

I could keep going and going and going. There is really no need. You are just being a cartoon of BS here.

[Gadianton]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolves around a charismatic leader who appeals to and claims to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate his own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than to reflect the different allegiances of the people. Some forms of authoritarian populism have been characterized by extreme nationalism, racism, conspiracy mongering, and scapegoating of marginalized groups, each of which served to consolidate the leader’s power, to distract public attention from the leader’s failures, or to conceal from the people the nature of the leader’s rule or the real causes of economic or social problems. In the second half of the 20th century, populism came to be identified with the political style and program of Latin American leaders such as Juan Perón, Getúlio Vargas, and Hugo Chávez. In the early 21st century, populist authoritarian regimes arose in Turkey, Poland, and Hungary, among other countries.

They need to add a North American guy from the first half of the 21st Century to the list.

[Cultellus]

Being a populist is not politically oppositional, it is oppositional to the elites.

This is a political identity now where what we were discussing above is not. What's it based on? Opposition. You say it isn't political opposition but rather opposition towards elites but it implicitly defines elites as those that are failing to govern in the interest of the people. It's an anti-party political identity based on opposition. And it is extreme. It has no political ideology that can be coolly and logically discussed in a political science context. It is instead purely given form when people feel slighted by their government and want change but don't imagine that to be feasible through the mechanisms of democracy as currently constituted.

Christamighty. You are so warped in your ideology, you can't reason.

I will give you one point, perhaps I needed to clarify that the opposition to the elites' (minority) control is not exclusively political. The opposition is not directed exclusively at a political party, as you are wont to believe and hope and insist. It is not anti-party, except where idiots draw a line in the sand and declare it as such. If YOU SET THE TERMS and say that one is extreme by not aligning with your ideology, and your ideology an affiliation to the one true party, you may see it as anti-party. That does not make your declaration any more of a fact than if you had declared that the holocaust never happened. The fact is, populism can be pro-majority, and not anti-party. It can be pro-family or pro-democracy, and not exclusively anti-(your)party.

[Cultellus]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolves around a charismatic leader who appeals to and claims to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate his own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than to reflect the different allegiances of the people. Some forms of authoritarian populism have been characterized by extreme nationalism, racism, conspiracy mongering, and scapegoating of marginalized groups, each of which served to consolidate the leader’s power, to distract public attention from the leader’s failures, or to conceal from the people the nature of the leader’s rule or the real causes of economic or social problems. In the second half of the 20th century, populism came to be identified with the political style and program of Latin American leaders such as Juan Perón, Getúlio Vargas, and Hugo Chávez. In the early 21st century, populist authoritarian regimes arose in Turkey, Poland, and Hungary, among other countries.

They need to add a North American guy from the first half of the 21st Century to the list.

It takes a special kind of stupid to use wiki and the britannica for your source.

If your point is that Trump is a populist, congratulations, you have come a long ways. He is the result of populism where the shithead apologists of the Cheney/Bush years were rejected and the elitist idiots of the DNC/Superdelegate/Hillary fiasco were rejected. Pay attention. It is going to get a lot more intense if you think McConnell, Romney and Schumer are making this better for your cause.

[honorentheos]

Populism is an anti-establishment, anti-elite ideology and political strategy. Populism as an ideology adopts a discursive approach and focuses on the tensions between the “pure people” and the “corrupt elite.” The “people” can be subsumed into three discursive frames: the nation, the (economic) underdog, and the ordinary people (Canovan 1981, cited under Theoretical Approaches). The narrative of the people as a “nation” is hostile to migrants and ethnic minorities. The populist rhetoric of the “underdog’’ expresses anxieties related to economic differences. Finally, the language of the “ordinary people” resonates with visions of a simple, everyday life. Populism viewed as a political strategy focuses on its agency, or the ability of populist movements to instrumentally appeal to followers, to maintain a direct relationship between the leader and the followers, and to exploit existing institutional weaknesses. Populists target the establishment and the elites selectively.

Thanks! This is an excellent description of the extreme underpinning of populism as an oppositional political identity. Now, do politicians use it to manipulate people and thus populism functions as political strategy? Yeah. That's the point of fomenting populism given it's ease for redirection with it's lacking a politically positive motivation. Someone who identifies as a populist is an extremist and that makes them useful.

"Populism as an ideology adopts a discursive approach and focuses on the tensions between the 'pure people' and the 'corrupt elite.' "

Yep. Extreme.

P.S. Your other confusion is mistaking populism being able to be talked about as an academic subject, which obvious it can since everything can be discussed as object. What it can't be is debated on it merits in the way politically positive positions can be discussed. It's existence is ephemeral, arising in opposition and disapaiting back into indifference as things acted upon. Populism does not exist in a non-extreme state because the very definition of populism is based on it's reactionary nature.

If this really bothers you, as it apparently does, why not find a positive political identity to take it's place? There are plenty of ways to be engaged or at least to hold ideological views that are FOR a thing rather than merely built up around being against RRRRRAAAaHhhhHHhHH Elites!!!!!! Negative identities aren't healthy, neither for individuals nor for society.

[honorentheos]

Also, this also holds true for people whose political identity is purely based on being anti-Trump or anti-Nancy Pelosi, or anti-whatever. Negative political identities are extreme and easily manipulated because, without positive principles, they have no moral compass from which to take a bearing when needed.

Much of our troubles politically exist because people are passionately against various people and groups. But they lack conviction for something positive. Whether those are being for democratic values that they can articulate (beyond abstractions such as FREEDOM!!! or RIGHTS!!!!), fiscal responsibility, right-sized military, human rights as equally domestic and foreign policy issues, education access...whatever it may be. Being FOR something demands understanding and action. It can come into conflict. But it can exist independent of conflict and, in it's purest form, seeks a path beyond conflict to realization.

[Cultellus]

Thanks! This is an excellent description of the extreme underpinning of populism as an oppositional political identity. Now, do politicians use it to manipulate people and thus populism functions as political strategy? Yeah. That's the point of fomenting populism given it's ease for redirection with it's lacking a politically positive motivation. Someone who identifies as a populist is an extremist and that makes them useful.

"Populism as an ideology adopts a discursive approach and focuses on the tensions between the 'pure people' and the 'corrupt elite.' "

Yep. Extreme.

honor, you are one hell of a mascot for what is going on in the country, and on this board. I appreciate your willingness to get on here and represent like this.

That was the summary introduction to the topic. As you can see, there are many departments and scholars that are publishing on the topic, including, ironically, BYU. Your insistence on labelling populism as extreme, not part of political science, and not having positive motivation is a reflection of your bias and ideology, not the facts. You exclude facts, you exclude the research, you exclude data. I get it. You are exactly like DCP and Midgley, but different. You need people to be evil, wrong, mislead, misguided, tools and stooges. You sound like McConkie. You have a belief, and by damn, you are going to support that belief and show your disdain for all the whores of the earth that are not on your side.

I am standing over there in the middle somewhere just laughing at your holocaust-denying logic and methods. Revise it and define it all you want. It will not make it true, even if you feel better about yourself and Gadianton loves you. It still will not be true. The populists are not what you say or think. They are the subject of Political Science research. They are normal, they are good and they are vast. Your need to malign them is just your personal crap and your personal rant - like a lunatic raging that the holocaust never happened, even if it did. You are THAT!

[honorentheos]

Thanks! This is an excellent description of the extreme underpinning of populism as an oppositional political identity. Now, do politicians use it to manipulate people and thus populism functions as political strategy? Yeah. That's the point of fomenting populism given it's ease for redirection with it's lacking a politically positive motivation. Someone who identifies as a populist is an extremist and that makes them useful.

"Populism as an ideology adopts a discursive approach and focuses on the tensions between the 'pure people' and the 'corrupt elite.' "

Yep. Extreme.

honor, you are one hell of a mascot for what is going on in the country, and on this board. I appreciate your willingness to get on here and represent like this.

That was the summary introduction to the topic. As you can see, there are many departments and scholars that are publishing on the topic, including, ironically, BYU. Your insistence on labelling populism as extreme, not part of political science, and not having positive motivation is a reflection of your bias and ideology, not the facts. You exclude facts, you exclude the research, you exclude data. I get it. You are exactly like DCP and Midgley, but different. You need people to be evil, wrong, mislead, misguided, tools and stooges. You sound like McConkie. You have a belief, and by damn, you are going to support that belief and show your disdain for all the whores of the earth that are not on your side.

I am standing over there in the middle somewhere just laughing at your holocaust-denying logic and methods. Revise it and define it all you want. It will not make it true, even if you feel better about yourself and Gadianton loves you. It still will not be true. The populists are not what you say or think. They are the subject of Political Science research. They are normal, they are good and they are vast. Your need to malign them is just your personal crap and your personal rant - like a lunatic raging that the holocaust never happened, even if it did. You are THAT!

All you actually have to do to prove me wrong is demonstrate something populists are for that exists independent of opposition.

You also keep lumping people into the populist label who don't identify as populist. You assign that to them just because they don't care about politics or politicians.

Populism isn't vast. It's growing but it's no different than actively going around declaring the people who are Zeus atheists are vast. Sure, most people don't believe in Zeus. But they aren't bothered enough to take an anti-Zeus stance.

[Cultellus]

Also, this also holds true for people whose political identity is purely based on being anti-Trump or anti-Nancy Pelosi, or anti-whatever. Negative political identities are extreme and easily manipulated because, without positive principles, they have no moral compass from which to take a bearing when needed.

Much of our troubles politically exist because people are passionately against various people and groups. But they lack conviction for something positive. Whether those are being for democratic values that they can articulate (beyond abstractions such as FREEDOM!!! or RIGHTS!!!!), fiscal responsibility, right-sized military, human rights as equally domestic and foreign policy issues, education access...whatever it may be. Being FOR something demands understanding and action. It can come into conflict. But it can exist independent of conflict and, in it's purest form, seeks a path beyond conflict to realization.

Populism favors the people. People are passionate for their families, jobs, homes, economies, countries and liberties - and many other things.

You have lost your goddamn mind, honor. The people are good. The people will be good. They will also fight like hell when people like you call them names, misrepresent them, malign them, and take away their stuff. They are good like that.

You are wrong about the people. You are wrong to consider them extreme. You are wrong to dismiss them. But, you retain the right to be wrong. Keep on with it if you wish.