The essence of populism and its popular impact

[myata]

1. Populists are always there, and were. The idea that a solution to a complex problem can be possible through a secret, but simple act is as old as humanity itself. And it's quite easy to sell because this is exactly what folks are looking for at the times of uncertainty and change. Humans are famous, probably the unmatched champions in their ability to accept desired for the reality, and even force it on the reality, as much and to the last drop where it can last.

2. The populace as a whole does not have sophisticated intelligence. It's attitude can be described by only a few grades: "that's great let's get more of that!"; "meh, but OK"; and, "we've had enough of it, let's try something else".

3. In the latter case, the populace can take one of the available choices, presenting a disconnect and a change; or create new ones (upset; revolution).

4. The elites often, very often or almost always fail to see the moment when the population had enough and a real change, disconnect is needed. Can write many words but here:

Gore; Clinton; Biden: as simple and terse as it gets. Nope, they just don't see it. All is going great and you just need to stick with us. Forever. No change.

So, that ingrained desire of the elites to bathe in the status quo and avoid meaningful change as much as at all possible eventually comes face to face with the wish of the populace to see the change. If real, genuine one isn't possible OK give us some, even just words and entirely superficial.

In the proportional system the problem is at least in part mitigated by recording a real, accurate representation of voters attitudes and forcing them to come to at least some consistent direction, often a compromise. But the binary one can offer nothing of the kind: either, the goodness of benevolent elites extended into infinity, "we take good care of you"; or all-out populism.

This is the core, the essence. No good words can change anything in this picture. Ohoh.

[Michael Hardner]

A lot of good points.

I would say, though, that populism can only exist in non-egalitarian society.

[myata]

As far as I can see, maybe it's not so much about egalitarianism but how, in what plane the question of power is set: which of these XYZ political groups, with their respective programs, will address the highest priorities of the society at this time most effectively? as opposed to: which (of the two shows and presenters) you like better?

The question democratic power is nothing like a show. The responsibility and consequences, no match. But the binary setting of the politics inevitably drives it all the way down to the latter.

The contract between the elites and the populace is not one way: we rule you clap and feel happy. The elites have to identify the directions of meaningful positive change, show and prove them to the people. The people have to exercise their reason and responsibility when choosing who will lead them. Both are necessary for the democracy to persist into the next generation. We are living at the time of a simultaneous failure of both.

[Nationalist]

https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=Populism+and+democracy+

Watch the clips and then make grandiose claims.

Populism is a struggle to introduce common sense to politics. To introduce real representation of the people...instead of empty promises. 

Watch the clips. Pelosi is particularly weak.

[August1991]

13 hours ago, myata said:

...

So, that ingrained desire of the elites to bathe in the status quo and avoid meaningful change as much as at all possible eventually comes face to face with the wish of the populace to see the change. If real, genuine one isn't possible OK give us some, even just words and entirely superficial.

-.

In Canada, some of us are French. Others Catholic.

We get along. We Canadians have discovered a way for different people to pursue their own interest - yet create a civilised society for all.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=Populism+and+democracy+

Watch the clips and then make grandiose claims.

Populism is a struggle to introduce common sense to politics. To introduce real representation of the people...instead of empty promises. 

Watch the clips. Pelosi is particularly weak.

I prefer the ELITE SENSE of EXPERTS. Esp NOT that of ^college dropouts.

Only experts know ALL the costs and benefits.

[August1991]

17 hours ago, myata said:

...

2. The populace as a whole does not have sophisticated intelligence. It's attitude can be described by only a few grades: "that's great let's get more of that!"; "meh, but OK"; and, "we've had enough of it, let's try something else".

....

I favour a legislature where we randomly pick people on the street.

(Random people would likely be better.)

The problem is not voters - they are smart - the problem is that one vote changes nothing.

 

Edited May 20, 2024 by August1991

[Hodad]

18 hours ago, myata said:

1. Populists are always there, and were. The idea that a solution to a complex problem can be possible through a secret, but simple act is as old as humanity itself. And it's quite easy to sell because this is exactly what folks are looking for at the times of uncertainty and change. Humans are famous, probably the unmatched champions in their ability to accept desired for the reality, and even force it on the reality, as much and to the last drop where it can last.

2. The populace as a whole does not have sophisticated intelligence. It's attitude can be described by only a few grades: "that's great let's get more of that!"; "meh, but OK"; and, "we've had enough of it, let's try something else".

3. In the latter case, the populace can take one of the available choices, presenting a disconnect and a change; or create new ones (upset; revolution).

4. The elites often, very often or almost always fail to see the moment when the population had enough and a real change, disconnect is needed. Can write many words but here:

Gore; Clinton; Biden: as simple and terse as it gets. Nope, they just don't see it. All is going great and you just need to stick with us. Forever. No change.

So, that ingrained desire of the elites to bathe in the status quo and avoid meaningful change as much as at all possible eventually comes face to face with the wish of the populace to see the change. If real, genuine one isn't possible OK give us some, even just words and entirely superficial.

In the proportional system the problem is at least in part mitigated by recording a real, accurate representation of voters attitudes and forcing them to come to at least some consistent direction, often a compromise. But the binary one can offer nothing of the kind: either, the goodness of benevolent elites extended into infinity, "we take good care of you"; or all-out populism.

This is the core, the essence. No good words can change anything in this picture. Ohoh.

I don't think those examples hold up. Gore, Clinton and Biden all won the popular vote. A slim loss in the electoral college isn't the people crying out for change.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

I prefer the ELITE SENSE of EXPERTS. Esp NOT that of ^college dropouts.

Only experts know ALL the costs and benefits.

Son you are a remarkable example of the absolutely average person.

No desire to think for yourself. Just blindly follow off a cliff.

[myata]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

Gore, Clinton and Biden all won the popular vote.

That is a consolation they like to float. And the reality is, they tried to not notice the society's desire for change; maybe they don't even know anymore what a real, meaningful change is?; and that attitude backfired on them. "Look, you can only have us" vs "just push here and all your problems are solved, magically": is there really much of a difference?

[myata]

Both parties are complicit in that the populace now sees the democracy not as the utmost responsibility but some kind of an entertainment, show. Both built it and contributed to it hoping to gain from it. And that condition usually signals that its end can be not too far around. No dark prophesies, only the fact of logic and history. If in a critical choice you laugh and throw a coin that's fine it's a choice. But then you've got to be ready for big surprises. Latin America and countless times and places since Rome know.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, myata said:

Both parties are complicit in that the populace now sees the democracy not as the utmost responsibility but some kind of an entertainment, show. Both built it and contributed to it hoping to gain from it. And that condition usually signals that its end can be not too far around. No dark prophesies, only the fact of logic and history. If in a critical choice you laugh and throw a coin that's fine it's a choice. But then you've got to be ready for big surprises. Latin America and countless times and places since Rome know.

You can't govern when a key stakeholder, ie the public, is largely looking for entertainment.

If people had their basic needs met, then that might work.  One could argue it's been working for 50, 60 years or more.

Johnson beat Goldwater due to a baseless TV and.  Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon heavily used PR.

The thing about 2020 that hasn't resonated is that the populism is supported by wealthy people not working class.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184428/presidential-election-exit-polls-share-votes-income-us/

[myata]

26 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If people had their basic needs met, then that might work.  One could argue it's been working for 50, 60 years or more.

This is only a part of the story. Between the easy way, and the right one the elites routinely pick which? Then, a self-fulfilling prophecy. No one to point fingers to. Yes we can. Yes, we did it again.

The objective, going back all those decades was not to win at all cost. It was to find and show the way. Winning was only the consequence. In all the muzak, we forgot. And then, why bother if we can win anyways (we think).

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, myata said:

 And then, why bother if we can win anyways (we think).

What drives crisis?  Technology change, with economic change.

We're already past the first criterion, now if we hit the second watch out.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What drives crisis?  Technology change, with economic change.

We're already past the first criterion, now if we hit the second watch out.

Economic change?

Or economic stupidity?

[Michael Hardner]

41 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Economic change?

Or economic stupidity?

Change.  Like competition from foreign entities, crop failure, unserviceable debt...

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Change.  Like competition from foreign entities, crop failure, unserviceable debt...

Competition can and should be monitored and controlled. That used to be the norm. Now the "corporataucrisy" is in charge and borders are being erased. 

Crop failure?

Unservicable debt created by stupid people who think devaluation of currency and a debt that simply cannot be repaid, are not a massive problem. And the Libbies continue to engage in this behavior.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Nationalist

[eyeball]

On 5/19/2024 at 6:11 AM, myata said:

The idea that a solution to a complex problem can be possible through a secret, but simple act is as old as humanity itself.

What? Where on Earth did this idea come from?

 

On 5/19/2024 at 6:11 AM, myata said:

The populace as a whole does not have sophisticated intelligence.

There are plenty enough intelligent people but if you're saying everything is a big secret perhaps all that's missing is more transparency. There's a big difference between ignorance and stupidity. Secrecy leads to the former not the latter unless the people operating secretly are stupid.

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Son you are a remarkable example of the absolutely average person.

^You are an unremarkable example of a Dunning Kruger IGNORAMUS.

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

No desire to think for yourself. Just blindly follow off a cliff.

My extensive cites HERE from MANY different sources, say ^this OPINION of YOURS IS WRONG.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Competition can and should be monitored and controlled. That used to be the norm. Now the "corporataucrisy" is in charge and borders are being erased. 

Crop failure?

Unservicable debt created by stupid people who think devaluation of currency and a debt that simply cannot be repaid, are not a massive problem. And the Libbies continue to engage in this behavior.

Trump's huge tax cut created the largest INCREASE IN DEBT EVER.

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney

AKA you're IGNORANT of the role played by RepubliCONS.

[Nationalist]

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

^You are an unremarkable example of a Dunning Kruger IGNORAMUS.

My extensive cites HERE from MANY different sources, say ^this OPINION of YOURS IS WRONG.

1. Oops...out comes Kruger again...lol.

2. Your extensive propaganda is repetitive, childish and generally wrong.

[Nationalist]

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Trump's huge tax cut created the largest INCREASE IN DEBT EVER.

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney

AKA you're IGNORANT of the role played by RepubliCONS.

Lol...

Trump presided over the hottest economy in US history.

Deal with it Sally.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...

Trump presided over the hottest economy in US history.

 

Why do you people say this? It's stupid. Not remotely true. Are you abjectly ignorant of economic history, just parroting a Trump boast? Or do you know it's a lie and just hope that other people are dumb enough to believe it?

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Why do you people say this? It's stupid. Not remotely true. Are you abjectly ignorant of economic history, just parroting a Trump boast? Or do you know it's a lie and just hope that other people are dumb enough to believe it?

Lowest unemployment since the '60's. $2.00 gas. A prime rate of effectively 0%. The stock markets set records.

The people had a hot economy until The Rona hit. Things were so good that I remember Libbies discussing if they could tank it just to "get Trump" that yes...they would.

Face it Tweenkie-Poo...the Trump economy, pre-pandemic was amazing. Had The Rona not hit, the last year would have been phenomenal. 

Then came your crusty old id1ot and he shat all over everything he has touched.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Nationalist

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Lowest unemployment since the '60's. $2.00 gas. A prime rate of effectively 0%. The stock markets set records.

The people had a hot economy until The Rona hit. Things were so good that I remember Libbies discussing if they could tank it just to "get Trump" that yes...they would.

Face it Tweenkie-Poo...the Trump economy, pre-pandemic was amazing. Had The Rona not hit, the last year would have been phenomenal. 

Then came your crusty old id1ot and he shat all over everything he has touched.

Gas prices are not an economic indicator. They do not reflect economic health except at the margins, but rather are mostly decided by Sheiks half a world away acting on their own interests. POTUS has very little influence outside of extreme actions. But the price of gas as an input can influence the economy. 

A low interest rate is traditionally a response to a weak economy--or in the case of Trump taking office, the desire by the Fed to avoid disrupting the Obama recovery. They arguably kept their foot on the gas a bit too long. When economies get hot, central banks raise interest rates to slow spending and keep the economy from overheating into bubbles and inflation. The rates are set in response to economic conditions. So, again not an economic indicator.

Unemployment, finally, is a reasonable economic indicator, but dig deeper there and you'll see that Trump's low unemployment number comes with caveats.

The first is that he started on third base. He inherited a robust and growing economy. Job creation didn't change at all under Trump--well actually it slowed just a bit. He didn't accelerate the curve at all. 

The second caveat is that under Biden, who inherited a financial crisis, unemployment actually dropped lower than even Trump's best month, and has sustained far longer. Biden's record on jobs is objectively better than Trump's. It's Biden who owns the best jobs market since the 60s. 

So you're 0 for 3 in an effort to support your claim. Because it's a silly claim.

 

Edited May 21, 2024 by Hodad