Stephen Harper's New Book - Right Here, Right Now - the Age of Disruption

[Centerpiece]

I've always admired the substantial knowledge that he has - and how clearly he articulates it. 

Click on the link for the full excerpt. It's a long read but quite fascinating - so settle back with a tea or coffee for 20 minutes:

The rise of populism — on this continent and beyond — has drawn condemnation from across the political spectrum. But as former prime minister Stephen J. Harper argues in this exclusive excerpt from his new book, Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption, the so-called “deplorables” who have voted establishment figures out of office deserve a careful hearing. Their concerns point to deep problems with globalization — and they aren’t going away. 

Link: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/exclusive-stephen-harper-book-excerpt

Edited October 5, 2018 by Centerpiece

[Argus]

The turn to populism is only happening because of the way the culture of the political/academic/media elites has distanced itself from that of the people, and no longer pays a lot of attention to the people's concerns. Every view, opinion and complaint driving populists is widely held by the population and widely ignored by those in charge because it conflicts with their ideological views. That most certainly exists in Canada, too. Canada is simply waiting for a populist with some charisma to show up with the right message.

 

[Michael Hardner]

15 hours ago, Argus said:

1. The turn to populism is only happening because of the way the culture of the political/academic/media elites has distanced itself from that of the people, and no longer pays a lot of attention to the people's concerns.

2. Every view, opinion and complaint driving populists is widely held by the population and widely ignored by those in charge because it conflicts with their ideological views.

3. That most certainly exists in Canada, too. Canada is simply waiting for a populist with some charisma to show up with the right message.

 

1. That's Harper's point and while he's not wrong, it's not a deep observation IMO.  The so-called elites have always looked after their own and the impacts of trade deals on impacted areas began decades ago, so why is it only happening now ?

2. Maybe ... but I would agree more if you said "missed" instead of "ignored" and "doesn't match" with "conflicts".  Like Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cakes" statement, the elites just don't get why a laid off miner in West Virginia doesn't start up his own dotcom.  There was a scene in the film "Primary Colours" where a presidential candidate (modelled on Bill Clinton) tells a group of blue collar people that their jobs are gone, but his government would help them transition.  The Clintons provide bookends to how globalism played out in America.

3. Or an angry idiot like Doug Ford, or the CAQ-of-the-walk. The "throw the bums out" thing used to happen during recessions, and you would get a vastly different type of person winning the election.  I would argue that Reagan, Bill Clinton and Bob Rae were those kinds of politicians ie. they rode a wave of anger but during a recession.  Today's populism is like that, except the recession isn't happening so much.  

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's Harper's point and while he's not wrong, it's not a deep observation IMO.  The so-called elites have always looked after their own and the impacts of trade deals on impacted areas began decades ago, so why is it only happening now ?

I think because immigration/migration has reached a tipping point where the local population are done with grumbling - which was ignored - and are now set about yelling and screaming. Behind all the disruption/populism in Europe is migration. Donald Trump would not have gotten elected without longstanding and long-ignored resentment towards migration. It isn't JUST about economics, except where the perception is that economic problems are tied in with immigration. For example:

In many countries, with low-wage workers already under pressure, low-skilled immigration has actually accelerated.

That's bound to increase resentment.

Another relevant excerpt:

These trends represent real costs to real people. Why should we be surprised when, ignored by traditional conservatives and derided by traditional liberals, these citizens start seeking alternative political choices? If policy does not seem to be working out for the public, in a democracy, you are supposed to fix the policy, not denounce the public. But, if you listen to some leaders and much of the media, you would not know it.

Quote

2. Maybe ... but I would agree more if you said "missed" instead of "ignored" and "doesn't match" with "conflicts". 

No. There is some 'missed' but there is also deliberate ignorance, as if the concerns expressed by the grubby masses are beneath the notice of educated, progressive people. Or as Harper says:

There is a widening chasm in perspectives between establishment institutions and common citizens that is very worrying.

It is a split between those whose lives cross borders, and those who live within them.

It is a split between those whose identities are international and multicultural, and those whose are national and traditional.

Today’s political leaders must give up on the idea that the concerns of significant segments of the population can be dismissed or denigrated.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by Argus

[OftenWrong]

We knew globalization would create the kind of shifts in wealth that are apparent now. I recall these fears being downplayed, as they arise every time trans-national trade agreements are made. It's taken some decades for this predictable transfer of wealth to take effect. Harper is saying these agreements often do not take into account the sizeable population who live in small, often isolated communities outside of big urban areas. The politically, economically disenfranchised. In fact the majority of Canadians live in small towns and rural areas. Globalization will always benefit progressives, but it becomes an increasingly smaller, more elite group as time goes on. The swarming dumb dumbs in the progressive middle class are kept well distracted and entertained for this very reason, while they shed their wealth.

[Argus]

20 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

We knew globalization would create the kind of shifts in wealth that are apparent now. I recall these fears being downplayed, as they arise every time trans-national trade agreements are made. It's taken some decades for this predictable transfer of wealth to take effect. Harper is saying these agreements often do not take into account the sizeable population who live in small, often isolated communities outside of big urban areas. The politically, economically disenfranchised. In fact the majority of Canadians live in small towns and rural areas. Globalization will always benefit progressives, but it becomes an increasingly smaller, more elite group as time goes on. The swarming dumb dumbs in the progressive middle class are kept well distracted and entertained for this very reason, while they shed their wealth.

The new industries require a lot of education, so they tend to locate in areas with universities and a large body of well-educated workers. That's the big cities. Meanwhile, smaller urban centres decay since their manufacturing industries wind up being shipped offshore while none of the new industries want to locate there.

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

The new industries require a lot of education, so they tend to locate in areas with universities and a large body of well-educated workers. That's the big cities. Meanwhile, smaller urban centres decay since their manufacturing industries wind up being shipped offshore while none of the new industries want to locate there.

I'm more for de-centralization, and less industrialization. Big cities are a mistake that should not be built. True progressives exist, who believe its possible to have smaller but more self-sustaining communities, even in a technological age. In fact, the quality of life could be higher than it is for a city like Toronto.

I'm in Frontenac county. We have some high tech out here. We have our schools, a University, we have R&D. Many high tech companies prefer to relocate to quieter areas, and bring their professionals who enjoy a better living vs. say, Toronto. Easy to beat that. This of course promotes growth in the small community, as those professionals want their kids to go to good schools, have cultural things to do, etc. To an extent that is a good thing, but how far does it go?

[Michael Hardner]

51 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. It's taken some decades for this predictable transfer of wealth to take effect.

2. Harper is saying these agreements often do not take into account the sizeable population who live in small, often isolated communities outside of big urban areas. The politically, economically disenfranchised. In fact the majority of Canadians live in small towns and rural areas.

3. Globalization will always benefit progressives, but it becomes an increasingly smaller, more elite group as time goes on.

4. The swarming dumb dumbs in the progressive middle class are kept well distracted and entertained for this very reason, while they shed their wealth.

1. It's not a transfer but a continuationfraudulently dodge hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, advantage to the investor class.  Predictable by whom ?  Did they predict it ?

2. Sure but I think that the miscalculation was that those areas have political power beyond the scale of their numbers.  I think that they thought that such places would adjust better.

3. Always ? Why always ?

4. They sound like they're susceptible to the same forces as the rural set, except later.  So why call them dumb?

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's not a transfer but a continuationfraudulently dodge hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes, advantage to the investor class.  Predictable by whom ?  Did they predict it ?

2. Sure but I think that the miscalculation was that those areas have political power beyond the scale of their numbers.  I think that they thought that such places would adjust better.

3. Always ? Why always ?

4. They sound like they're susceptible to the same forces as the rural set, except later.  So why call them dumb?

1. Such things were predicted by people during the original debate on NAFTA, and about globalization as well, long before the internet.

3. By the mechanism which Harper gives. Globlization is a progressive economic instrument, made by them, and here's the problem- they made it for them. Whether conscious or not, we have a sizeable portion who now oppose it, and this is becoming an increasingly popular meme.

4. Because they should know better by now? Trump is the backlash. He is the icon that represents a whole movement, because he became POTUS. Despite the media fury against him, he has still managed to achieve some remarkable things. The fury cannot be extended into anything substantial that he has failed, as president. Therefore it is only because of this, primarily: His anti-establishment, anti-globalist message. Anti-immigration. Local economies, local culture... it is the globalist progressive's most existential threat. Therefore ye fools prattle on, until you achieve your very own demise!

Edited October 6, 2018 by OftenWrong

[Argus]

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Trump is the backlash. He is the icon that represents a whole movement, because he became POTUS. Despite the media fury against him, he has still managed to achieve some remarkable things.

As far as I can determine Trump' has virtually nothing to do with the day-to-day running of the country or the legislation or policy changes made. He works maybe an hour and a half a day, mostly in photo ops, and spends the rest of the day eating, tweeting and watching TV - except when he's golfing. The tax cuts weren't his. The judicial appointments weren't selected by him. He signs whatever is put in front of him and then goes and watches TV. Cabinet secretaries mostly run their department while being overseen by Pence.

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The fury cannot be extended into anything substantial that he has failed, as president.

The fury against Trump is due to what he has said; his ignorance and crudity and injudicious and insulting attacks on everyone around him. He is a bloated mass of burger fat with the lowest IQ of any politician in federal history.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Such things were predicted by people during the original debate on NAFTA, and about globalization as well, long before the internet.

2. By the mechanism which Harper gives. Globlization is a progressive economic instrument, made by them, and here's the problem- they made it for them. Whether conscious or not, we have a sizeable portion who now oppose it, and this is becoming an increasingly popular meme.

3. Because they should know better by now?

 

1. Which people ?  Who specifically ?

2. I just searched the article for 'progressive' and didn't find it.  "Progressives" is commonly used to describe people who favour social issues such as gender equality.  Is that what you mean ?  The left protested globalization tooth & nail when it arrived in the late 1980s so I think you're just wrong here.  "Progressive Globalist" isn't the same as "Globalist".  "Globalism" was driven by multinationals who wanted to manufacture cars and electronics and so on overseas, not by progressives who were/are married to labour unions.

3.  So they're dumb because ... they should know better than to be fooled by what duped the rural people... ie. they're smarter than rural people ?    Weird.

 

[eyeball]

Quote

So here is my re-examination in a nutshell. A large proportion of Americans, including many American conservatives, voted for Trump because they are really not doing very well. In short, the world of globalization is not working for many of our own people

Blah blah blah....all anyone who tried pointing this out to Harperistas nearly 20 years ago could expect in return was universal condemnation as a commie terrorist sympathizer and a bunch of hearty lol's.  I'm guessing now that animosity was because it was also being pointed out how today's populism would rise on a wave of ignorant racist conservatism.

Fucking LOL is all I have to say. 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

We knew globalization would create the kind of shifts in wealth that are apparent now. I recall these fears being downplayed, as they arise every time trans-national trade agreements are made. It's taken some decades for this predictable transfer of wealth to take effect. Harper is saying these agreements often do not take into account the sizeable population who live in small, often isolated communities outside of big urban areas. The politically, economically disenfranchised. In fact the majority of Canadians live in small towns and rural areas. Globalization will always benefit progressives, but it becomes an increasingly smaller, more elite group as time goes on. The swarming dumb dumbs in the progressive middle class are kept well distracted and entertained for this very reason, while they shed their wealth.

You conservatives knew and recall shit.

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Predictable by whom ?  Did they predict it ?

 

9 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. Such things were predicted by people during the original debate on NAFTA, and about globalization as well, long before the internet.

 

facepalm/

[OftenWrong]

53 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. I just searched the article for 'progressive' and didn't find it.  "Progressives" is commonly used to describe people who favour social issues such as gender equality.  Is that what you mean ?  The left protested globalization tooth & nail when it arrived in the late 1980s so I think you're just wrong here.  "Progressive Globalist" isn't the same as "Globalist".  "Globalism" was driven by multinationals who wanted to manufacture cars and electronics and so on overseas, not by progressives who were/are married to labour unions.

3.  So they're dumb because ... they should know better than to be fooled by what duped the rural people... ie. they're smarter than rural people ?    Weird.

 

2. People who want progress, not social justice warriors. As in "a philosophy... on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." Link
You have associated the idea of "left" with progressive, others might associate "liberal" with progressive. Not too many associate "conservative" with progressive. Not any more, but it seems like a good idea.

Further on: With the rise of neoliberalism and challenges to state interventionist policies in the 1970s and 1980s, centre-left progressive movements responded by creating the Third Way that emphasized a major role for the market economy.

From there the transition to globalism is inevitable.

3. Progressives, as per definition given in 2. hate Trump for their reasons, but fail to see how doing unlimited trade with a third world country only gives short term gain, and only in some areas. Big cities survive a Walmart. Elsewhere it brings foreseeable economic hardship to the areas described. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. People who want progress, not social justice warriors. As in "a philosophy... on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." Link
You have associated the idea of "left" with progressive, others might associate "liberal" with progressive. Not too many associate "conservative" with progressive. Not any more, but it seems like a good idea.

2. Further on: With the rise of neoliberalism and challenges to state interventionist policies in the 1970s and 1980s, centre-left progressive movements responded by creating the Third Way that emphasized a major role for the market economy.

From there the transition to globalism is inevitable.

3. Progressives, as per definition given in 2. hate Trump for their reasons, but fail to see how doing unlimited trade with a third world country only gives short term gain, and only in some areas. Big cities survive a Walmart. Elsewhere it brings foreseeable economic hardship to the areas described. 

 

1. Ah ok.  I actually prefer your definition.  Also this is hilarious in the Canadian context, I love it: "Not too many associate conservative with progressive"...

2. I agree with the excerpt that you posted, and also this excerpt from the same wiki article: 

Quote

The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century, particularly out of the view that progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.^[3] 

Both of these excerpts from your source describe a "response".  The 19th century progressivism was a response to capitalism that asked politely for an answer to economic inequality.  Marxism was the corresponding rude demand for equality. And in your excerpt, the Third Way is indeed the flavour of globalism we see today, that came as a response to neoliberalism.

But that is why I jumped on your use of the phrase always here: "Globalization will always benefit progressives," I agree that what you wrote seems true in 2018, at least generally, but maybe not "always".  From your excerpt and mine, you can see the progressive class in history has asked for mitigation of laissez-faire capitalism so one might assume that they, or someone who supports them is/was against it.  Of course, I'm not saying that your use of "always" is necessarily false either.  I am asking "why always" ?

My main point is to point that the same populism that we have today elected Ronald Reagan, the 80s Republicans, Conservatives in the UK and Canada who were architects of the neoliberal economic plan that we have been following for 30 years.  And both the populists, and the progressives of the 1980s have switched teams.

3. "Elsewhere it brings foreseeable economic hardship to the areas described. "  Of course, but that's economic orthodoxy.  As I said earlier, I think that the leadership expected the industrial rust belt to be more resilient than they have been.  I agree that that part of trade agreement was predictable; ie. North America would lose relative employment in areas where they have a comparative disadvantage.  However, we're now discussing economic orthodoxy.  I can point you to the answers provided by conventional economics somewhat, such as how trade imbalance is supposed to work out over time with currency fluctuations: https://tinyurl.com/economics-of-trade  I am not familiar enough, however, to defend conventional economics against every criticism and especially not able to defend it against fringe economic ideas and conspiracies.  

---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   ---   

I think that economics is an extremely complicated subject, and while I applaud the idea that we are having a kind of public conversation about it... I think that we're lapsing into the same kinds of protectionist discussions that have flared up through history.  The US itself was on the other side of such an argument during the debate of the Corn Laws in England.  US farmers had a natural advantage and threatened agriculture in the UK at that time.  Eventually, both countries benefited although UK agricultural workers suffered in the shorter term.

If we are unable to have a full public discussion about trade, wherein the advantages and disadvantages would be discussed evenly, then we have to have knowledgable and trusted experts argue on our behalf.  We don't seem to have either option right now.

[Zeitgeist]

The problem with populism is that it appeals almost entirely to emotion rather than sense.  Because it seeks appeal among the lowest common denominator, it relies on unsophisticated platitudes and generalizations.  It's messaging is sloganeering, propaganda really.  It lacks nuance and shuns expertise that doesn't fit the popular narrative.  Right now the target of the right-wing populists (and most of them are on the right) is "globalists", "social justice warriors", and "elitists".  The irony is of course that in order to benefit from tax cuts you need to have an income, and unless the tax cuts are progressive (decreasing in percentage of cut with level of income), then it's the rich (elites) who benefit the most from tax cuts.  The populist Republicans under Trump have mastered the propaganda of being seen as the anti-elite party that's there for workers, yet they have cut the policies and supports that would most benefit the greatest number of citizens.  I see the nativist appeal of appearing tough on trade and raising the basic tax exemption.  However, by pissing off foreign countries through trade aggression and by bankrupting the Treasury with massive tax cuts, the populists are selling the family farms to drive fancy cars that will one day break down (recession).  The repair costs (public spending) will be too high, especially since the lease payments on the cars will be high and require constant repayment (deficits).  Trading partners meanwhile will have expanded other markets with fairer trading countries.  Good governance requires true conservatism, creating sustainable policy that gets the greatest bang for the buck for the long term, but most politicians only care about winning public support ahead of the election every four years.  

With regard to "social justice warriors", I'd argue that such folks have always been on the fringe.  No one likes oversensitive people who cry that the sky is falling over every minor example of political incorrectness, especially when it involves trying to destroy people's characters by investigating their private lives.  On the other hand, there are real social justice concerns, such as extreme poverty, political oppression, government corruption.  Fascists used to go after progressives on the left, calling them decadent liberal degenerates and elitists.  It's important not to paint every progressive with the same brush, which the populists tend to do.

Finally, on the matter of "globalism", let's not forget that the main reason for having global organizations was to prevent aggressive outliers from invading countries, oppressing citizens, and acting unfairly on the world stage.  Has there been some overreach by international organizations?  It would be hard to argue that position.  Rule of law is important because it protects citizens, people, and governments.  The U.S. has long wanted to take exception to international rules-based organizations, such as the ICC (International Criminal Court).  Even Canada has acted outside of the UN from time to time.  I'd just caution you that without rule of law, both domestically and internationally, people become susceptible to aggression from the outliers, much as Canada has been taken advantage of by the U.S. on trade, because the U.S. has fought or disregarded NAFTA dispute resolution decisions and the current U.S. federal government is trying to strip the World Trade Organization of decision-making authority, basically so that it can strong-arm countries on trade.  Smaller countries like Canada MUST support global, multilateral rules-based organizations for our very survival.   

Edited October 7, 2018 by Zeitgeist

[OftenWrong]

20 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The problem with populism is that it appeals almost entirely to emotion rather than sense.  Because it seeks appeal among the lowest common denominator, it relies on unsophisticated platitudes and generalizations. 

Not necessarily. And all parties of guilty of this offense, the appeal to emotion. Do that, you get at least half the crowd. But populists also know what the issues are that resonate with the public. They are pressing those buttons. Is that not also a valid form of leadership? Yes it is, especially if they follow through on their promises.

If by "lowest common denominator" you mean to say "Deplorables", you're committing an offense to about half the population. That sweeping dismissal towards the "lowest common denominator" reinforces them as a group. That same disregard also perpetuates their existence. It sets the stage for the populist leader, who knows how to say the right things. Trump is their Emperor-Demagogue. And don't forget, he also did reality TV. In a way, still doing it.

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Not necessarily. And all parties of guilty of this offense, the appeal to emotion. Do that, you get at least half the crowd. But populists also know what the issues are that resonate with the public. They are pressing those buttons. Is that not also a valid form of leadership? Yes it is, especially if they follow through on their promises.

If by "lowest common denominator" you mean to say "Deplorables", you're committing an offense to about half the population. That sweeping dismissal towards the "lowest common denominator" reinforces them as a group. That same disregard also perpetuates their existence. It sets the stage for the populist leader, who knows how to say the right things. Trump is their Emperor-Demagogue. And don't forget, he also did reality TV. In a way, still doing it.

Very few people deserve to be called deplorable.  It's not fair to characterize a large segment of the population that way.  Ignorance is prevalent among the masses, however, and a media savvy guy like Trump knows how to stir emotion and support among people who don't understand the complexity of some issues.  By repeating slogans and stirring the crowd, Trump was able to sell a characterization of America and its place in the world that either isn't the whole truth or that obfuscates reality.  It's irresponsible.  Almost all politicians do this at least sometimes, but Trump lowered the bar.  He is especially appealing to traditionally powerful groups who have seen their power slide: white people, especially white men.  I don't deny that this demographic deserves attention, but Trump's policies disproportionately favour big owners of capital, the rich.  It's important to distinguish his policy from the rhetoric he used to win support.  He's very good at appealing to emotion and the common man at rallies.  There isn't enough critical thinking about Trump's policies, especially among his supporters.  

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The problem with populism is that it appeals almost entirely to emotion rather than sense.  Because it seeks appeal among the lowest common denominator, it relies on unsophisticated platitudes and generalizations.  It's messaging is sloganeering, propaganda really.  It lacks nuance and shuns expertise that doesn't fit the popular narrative. 

If you look at party platforms, it's all about populism, but not broad populism. It's about targeted populism, about programs designed to appeal - on a populist basis - to this or that targeted voting block. The parties don't really care if it makes sense as long as it's popular to voting groups that might help them. Thus we had the Liberals promising to double the number of senior immigrants allowed to come to Canada. This is not in Canada's interest, but isn't meant to be. It's carefully targeted at certain immigrant groups, primarily from the ME region, and also calculated to not piss off the majority too bad - or at least, the people who might vote Liberal (they don't care if it pisses off conservatives). They also promised a tax cut to the 'middle class' without defining that middle class, and without actually paying for it. They claimed they'd increase taxes on 'the rich' to pay for it, but they didn't target the rich and their tax increase didn't pay for the tax cuts. But they don't care since it helped get them elected. On the east coast, they promised more goodies, more generous welfare (pogey), and are already upping that in preparation for the next election. This is a more sophisticated populism but it's no more logical or sensible or honest. And should not be treated as such.

Broad based populism mostly works where there is a significant number of people who already feel strongly about an issue which is being ignored by the existing political elites. We see that in Europe, where the elites ignored the people's growing concern with illegal migration to the point populist parties began to flourish.

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The problem with populism is that it appeals almost entirely to emotion rather than sense.  Because it seeks appeal among the lowest common denominator, it relies on unsophisticated platitudes and generalizations.  It's messaging is sloganeering, propaganda really.  It lacks nuance and shuns expertise that doesn't fit the popular narrative.  Right now the target of the right-wing populists (and most of them are on the right) is "globalists", "social justice warriors", and "elitists". 

To be honest, if you read your own words, you're talking about Canadian Liberals and American Democrats.

If it wasn't for lies and unsophisticated platitudes they'd be silent. 

In the States their platform is impeach 45, Russian collusion, Trump is a liar, Kavanaugh and the Republicans are rapists, open borders, no id requirement for voters, white privilege is rampant, free health care, free post-secondary, institutionalized racism, etc. There's nothing sensible at all in there, it's pure emotion based on lies or fantasies.  

In Canada we get the same pathetic virtue signalling, and the last election was won by the Liberals on the strength of the Duffygate smear campaign, which was probably where the Demmies got the idea for the Russian colluison investigation.

[turningrite]

On 10/7/2018 at 1:39 PM, Zeitgeist said:

1.) The problem with populism is that it appeals almost entirely to emotion rather than sense.  Because it seeks appeal among the lowest common denominator, it relies on unsophisticated platitudes and generalizations.  It's messaging is sloganeering, propaganda really.  It lacks nuance and shuns expertise that doesn't fit the popular narrative.  Right now the target of the right-wing populists (and most of them are on the right) is "globalists", "social justice warriors", and "elitists".

2.) Finally, on the matter of "globalism", let's not forget that the main reason for having global organizations was to prevent aggressive outliers from invading countries, oppressing citizens, and acting unfairly on the world stage. 

1.) Well, consider the alternative, which is autocracy of one sort or another. Historically, rule by the aristocracy and/or elites has ended up as badly, or worse, than rule by the mob. In fact, insofar as modern democracy exists in any form today it's largely in reaction to failed and self-serving leadership on the part of the elites. According to a piece in the Guardian this week, populism may be a response required to maintain democratic legitimacy (link below). Even Churchill, himself to the manor born, acknowledged the advantages of democracy in spite of all its inherent faults. I'll trust the wisdom of the masses any day in contrast to rule by special interests. 

2.) The problem with the modern form of globalization is its tendency to undermine national sovereignty and democracy. When multinational organizations, many of which serve narrow corporate and/or ideological interests, supplant the power of voters to exercise their will over their own national affairs, globalization becomes a threat and pits itself against the idea of democracy itself. The funny thing about modern democracy is that once many experience it they're loath to give it up. In much of the West, it's "baked" into the political culture. 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/11/could-populism-actually-be-good-for-democracy

Edited October 12, 2018 by turningrite

[Centerpiece]

Here's an interview with Harper about his book. Always good to hear his perspective - whether you agree with him or not. He's a thinker....

Link: 

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Centerpiece said:

He's a thinker....

 

He's also a right winger so....garbage in, garbage out. 

[Centerpiece]

50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

He's also a right winger so....garbage in, garbage out. 

Center-right.........