Senate The rise of populism on the left and right - 1920s part 2?

Stating that populism is on the rise, on both sides of the traditional political spectrum, should be a statement devoid of controversy and akin to suggesting the sun will rise tomorrow. In a world of such complexity, the need for simplification has arguably amplified since the smart phone was made ubiquitous by Apple - billions of people now have access to amazing quantities of information instantaneously. That information is complicated and people have neither the time, nor training, nor inclination to read a policy paper or statute or similar to understand it fully.

Since 2008, too, the aftereffects of the GFC have been rippling through our societies. Obscene levels of capital were simply obliterated and there has not been a return to pre-2007 levels of assumed prosperity, leading to a conclusion of a reduced pool of resources and inevitably a conspiracy by Other groups to shut out certain disaffected types from what is, in their view, inarguably theirs.

The Others include:
* Globalisation
* Free trade
* Financial services industry
* Migrants
* Illegal migrants
* The wealthy
* The poor

We've seen it typified on both sides of the US election with Messers Trump and Sanders, who are very similar in their positions as outsiders rallying against a corrupt system. For the purposes of this discussion, that they differ in the level of pernicious rage is immaterial - I acknowledge that Mr Trump is genuinely stirring up hatred that manifests itself in the most wretched ways where Mr Sanders is not.

We have also seen, in the recent Brexit vote, a similar mix. The think tank The Centre for Open Europe notes that the Leave campaign was comprised of a mix of liberal globalists and UKIP voter-style right wing working class, the latter being very 'concerned' about the conspiracy of Others (migrants, mostly Polish but also South Asian) to steal their jobs and benefits.

This WSJ piece goes into similar territory as I have above: http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-the-rise-of-populism-economic-angst-1453199402

"But it isn’t only Mr. Trump—not by a long shot. Leftist Sen. Bernie Sanders is challenging seriously for the Democratic nomination. More broadly, the kind of antiestablishment politics they practice were spreading in Europe for months before they began their presidential runs. In Europe and the U.S., the movement is fueled by middle-class economic insecurities, exacerbated by fear of immigrants arriving to steal jobs or soak up welfare money and other taxpayer dollars. Those anxieties are overlaid with an absolute conviction among many citizens that existing political leaders either don’t understand or, worse yet, don’t care."

The net effect is that, according to Heather Conley of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, the centre has collapsed politically and people are moving to the far left or right for answers.

This is not a new phenomenon; in the 1920s, fascism and communism both benefitted from similar insecurities drawing new members to their ranks.

Now, I agree with the WSJ's thinking on the matter but I think there's a deeper undercurrent here and it relates to the volume of information people are being presented with and how it plays out politically. Policy is complex. Well, actually, to be fair, policy is relative simple as a statement of intent, underpinned by procedural manuals and the like to, using American managementspeak, "operationalize" the policy. Nonetheless interpreting policy requires an understanding of law (and the ability to read legalese, for when policy becomes statute, helps); no assumptions about nefarious intent of any party in the system; a basic level of understanding of economics, and the capacity to critically think about any piece of legislation rather than support it because the point of origination was a party or political figure with whom you have affinity or sympathy.

In other words, it requires almost its own set of skills. At best, having some formal training in critical thinking is essential as it allows you to broadly interpret information correctly.

In order to sell media in this consumption age, journalists now spend their time taking the hundreds of news-worthy stories that happen daily and distill their core into a few paragraphs which in turn fuels a notion that simplification is viable. Accordingly we see the rise of people for whom their quest is to find the simplest explanation for the instability and complexity of the world around them; a world which has left them insecure socially and economically.

Those simple explanations include "it's the fault of:"

* Globalisation
* Free trade
* Financial services industry
* Migrants
* Illegal migrants
* The wealthy
* The poor

Firstly, would you agree with my characterisation of the root causes of populism? Do you see parallels with the 1920s? Do you think there's a reasonable resolution in the short term, or are we "about due" for another set of violent upheavals that bleed over into armed conflict?

And how do we turn this tide back, when every angry citizen has a phone in their pocket that can access information and guide them to their nearest virtual echo chamber?

 

I come away from reading what you wrote with two words: critical thinking.

The lack of proper education is even more evident nowadays, because yes, there is an obvious saturation of endless information, some of it opinion dressed up as fact which is horrible, but there seems to be no preparation on the part of, my God, anyone, to sift the lies from the truth, or the important from the unimportant. Of course that can be relative to.

The problem is that people would rather have other think for them because they are being raised in a society where what's important is easy living and being entertained. Critical thinking takes time and effort. Thus, its easier to just follow someone who speaks intelligently (regardless or whether what they're saying is actually intelligent), and follow a certain set of rules for determining what's right and wrong, and so we go back to thinking things in black and white, when reality is a lot more complicated. I can also see it very clearly in the monster that political correctness has become. If you look closely, these days people are on the lookout for someone saying some key word or phrase to label them racist, or bigoted, or whatever, regardless of CONTEXT. Why? Because its easy and you're betting on being right, and if you're wrong who cares, right? Being dismissive in the face of error is the law of the land these days.

So, in this post Cold War, stateless terrorist enemies world we turn as the simpletons we are to simple catch phrases and of course, the mother of all simple answers to anything and everything: religion.

Humanity is trying to point itself in a "right" direction, without knowing what that even means. Truth is we can't begin to do this unless we educate everyone, and by that I mean teach people to think for themselves, to take different points of views and look beyond them, to come to their own conclusions. There can never be a perfect answer to a problem, maybe not even a right one. We can only do our best, but we're not even doing that.

 

http://gawker.com/populism-look-left-1782663933

 

We are in weird unique times.
The borders are coming down, physically and digitally. People can move anywhere in large numbers quickly in a way that wasn't possible in the past. And it's transforming nations very quickly in ways that alot of people just don't like. Removing a simple comfortable, understandable world, and shoving in a complex, often alien and possibly dangerous one.

And it is being imposed by Others, and you are being told you have to like it or you are a bad person.

It's a big ask you are making of some people.

 

"some people"

 

What's that for, dp4m?

 

Populism is always there, driven by something. In post war Europe and the U.S. there was a broad sharing of wealth through the mechanism of organized blue collar labor and governments organized to support it. There were also macro political efforts to tie countries closer together.

I think there's another factor at work that the WSJ didn't recognize: individual dying and institutional forgetting. The living memory of world war 2 is dying along with the people who experienced it, and with it the pressing urgency to keep the forces of populism at bay.

 

This is actually a point - WWII was something for many of us we had a connection to - our grandparents experienced it, and our parents were born during or immediately after it. The horrors of what happened are something we felt we ought be aware of (and to a lesser degree we felt the same with respect of the Cold War and the Soviets); those who grandparents instead might have found in Vietnam have no such immediate connection to populism's worst days in memory.

 

Also people become unmoored in the absence of a common foe. People are casting about desperately for something to be against. But there's not even communism. What then, Islam? Terrorism? China? Globalization? Mexican immigrants? Trump has as hard a time choosing his enemy as everyone else.

 

In a lot of cases "some people" is because we're being asked to share the wealth and equality with non-white people.

 

He's clearly speaking about white working class people you numpty. If you're intending to typify The Problem, that's brilliant performance art. If not, stop it.

 

As fashionable as the haute couture of broadleft politics are, I'm unwilling to give the likes of Sanders a pass whilst condemning Trump. The left has a nasty habit of blaming terms it barely understands (because anything broadly economic is hard work) like "free trade" and "globalisation" for precisely the same ignorant reasons Trump et al blame non-whites for everything. You're right that the absence of a common enemy means one drawn battle line is hundreds of drawn battle lines but Sanders and co are equally culpable here and should be called out as such.

 

Ahhh.
Share the wealth. That's what it's all about. Sure.

 

ES you sure type up a good post, but those posts get handicapped whenever you include one of those personal gripes that can make people wonder if you wrote the post to discuss something or to spout about that particular gripe.

Which one is it?

To put Sanders on the same level as Trump-Farage-Wilders-Le Pen is nonsensical. Maybe you just do it to provide some balance, but it doesn't work.





In case you forgot: the American political center is not the political center. It's off to the right. Sanders may seem radical, but that's only in the context of American politics.

Aggression and disorder are the defining characteristics of the threat of populism. Anything else can be dealt with in a civilized manner. The platform that Sanders campaigned on was on an aspirational level, and that's not much different than any platform any American presidential candidate campaigns on ("read my lips"). Equating that with the time bomb tactics of right-wing fearmongers is bad for politics. Isolationism and protectionism, though harsh (and, I agree, misguided), are incomparable to the trampling of human rights. They're not equivalent, and you casting them as equivalent undermines your position.

Have you forgotten what actual threatening populism on the left looks like?

 

If that is true - and I certainly think it's an important factor - then the next question is what are the causes of the austerity measures. The crisis was handled in an unsatisfactory manner nearly everywhere.
But I read in the news this morning that the distribution of wealth in my country is relatively even and stable. The crisis had no significant effect on it. But I don't think it's perceived that way at all. Seems to me the media and social media have become tools for the amplifications of base emotions. If I was to blame anything or anyone for the rise of populism, it's that. And I don't think there's any solution except evolution.

 

Bernie is reading along, and chimes in:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/o...e-sanders-democrats-need-to-wake-up.html?_r=0

 

Did you not see how I said Sanders was a populist but not a cruel and malicious one like Trump/Wilders/Farage et all, Watto?

 

Do you think he is dangerous?

 

Could it be that the recession drove home the fact that we don't have everything under control, and that the lack of proper adjustments has made people fear the next one? That people are just scrambling to try to get on the good side of the next recession?

 

Yes.

 

The only danger that I see in him is that, if he succeeds in dragging the Democratic Party to the left, people in the middle might turn to the right, and we'd still end up with Trump. Otherwise he's harmless, because he's not going to be President.

 

Yes, because if enough people decide that ending free trade, protectionism, and isolationism is the answer -- that's dangerous, regardless of whether he is president.

Also, Wall Street is the enemy and all that jazz.