main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

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

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ender Sai, Jun 28, 2016.

  1. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001

    Safe to say I wouldn't find much common ground with your parents.
     
  2. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    OK but since Clinton, who is many things, is not a populist who gives a ****?

    It doesn't absolve Bernie from his stupidity no matter how much people want it to.

    That he's the left wing Trump is no badge of honour.
     
  3. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Sorry, I missed this.

    Why do we?

    There is ample evidence to show that neoliberal economics, something the fashionable left hate without understanding, has absolutely lead to wealth distribution and increased standard of living.

    It gave China a middle class, a consumer class, the size of the population of the United States. It's almost undermined China's position as a manufacturing centre, simply because the natural effect of economic growth is wage growth, and wage growth is at odds with cheap labour.

    What Fair Trade does exclusively is help white middle class consumers manage any notion of guilt they feel after they contemplate an unadjusted hourly rate for workers in the countries that produce these consumer goods. Nothing more. Nothing is said of purchasing power parity; "they earn US$2 a day? That's outrageous! (No, I've no idea what PPP is, why do you ask?)"

    Distortion of market demands for production are bad. Worse still are the downstream effects for coffee (or cocoa or whathaveyou) producers who aren't certified as fair trade. They're priced out of the market by people who pay based on arbitrary grounds and not on grounds such as quality which usually are attractive features of a product.

    It's an excellent example of consumer populism.
     
  4. Rogue_Ten

    Rogue_Ten Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2002
    Except for your preferred way of dismissing the opinions of people who are younger than you, apparently
     
    Lord Vivec likes this.
  5. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    I've done no such thing.
     
  6. Rogue_Ten

    Rogue_Ten Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 18, 2002
    I mean, it's on the last page if you missed it
     
  7. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    KW why are you being trolled by populists?
     
  8. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001

    Except that I in no way said what you believe I did. Interpret it as you'd like, but I don't think most people would believe that I'm dismissing the opinions of people who are younger than me. I made a factual observation that most people under the age of 30 are too young to remember the 1990s in terms of politics (obviously becoming more true the younger you get, and less true for the opposite). It's not like I'm expressing any kind of unique or uncommon opinion. It has been written in ample detail by now that those who remember the Clinton presidency tend to have different views toward Hillary Clinton than those who don't remember it in much detail (if at all). This doesn't mean that everyone who remembers it thinks well of either Clinton. It means that if you know the events of those years beyond just reading about them well after the fact, it may affect your perspective.

    It doesn't mean that everyone under the age of 30 should be dismissed. That's nonsense. I never said that, and didn't imply it.

    I say again that the most ardent supporter of Clinton that I know is 24 years old.
     
  9. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Please don't spam
     
    Rogue_Ten likes this.
  10. Darth Nerdling

    Darth Nerdling Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Well, populism as in people vs. elites is not necessarily a bad thing. In Europe it's mostly been associated with the right wing, but in the US, FDR was accused of being a populist, and he was advancing the position of regular Joes against the elite, and he fits much of your definition.

    When I think populism is really dangerous is when it involves a demagogue using irrational arguments to exploit people's fears of elites and immigrants and other bad groups that they aren't members of -- i.e. Trump arguing that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to travel to the US since, among other reasons, that would do absolutely nothing to stop terrorism; or the arguments about the dangers of immigrant crime, when immigrants have lower crime rates.

    I don't think it's fair to label a liberal critique of the US economic system as populism just b/c it's critical of the elite. Of course it's going to be critical of the elite. Over the last 30 years, workers productivity has doubled, while their wages remain stagnant and there have been huge economic gains at the top. Even some conservative economists are beginning to accept that there's a problem with this. The wealthy invest, the middle class spends. Growth rates would be higher if more money was going to the middle class. US companies would do better.

    If Sanders is going to address this central issue, then to some degree he has to be taking on the elites. They're the ones getting all the money, and elites have far more influence on the system than regular citizens do. This is what I've always speculated, and the new Princeton study backs this perspective up.

    So, I didn't see a problem with Sanders' rhetoric at the beginning of the campaign, except that he was short on details. (That doesn't mean I agree with all his positions or thought he was 100% right.) He was addressing real problems in our economic/political system. He was making a rational argument, listing off facts and figures. Denmark is better than the US b/c of X, Y, and Z (and it is; he just had very little understanding about how to get us from here to there).

    It was later on that I think Sanders started to exploit his supporters' avid devotion to him. That's when I think he got into the dangerous type populism, the type of populism that appeals to people's emotions while advocating clearly false positions -- like he deserved to be the nominee b/c of the polls despite losing fair and square, arguing against superdelegates but ignoring the issues with caucuses, saying the whole primary contest was rigged.
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    So basically, you provide a definition here of populism:

    "When I think populism is really dangerous is when it involves a demagogue using irrational arguments to exploit people's fears of elites and immigrants and other bad groups that they aren't members of -- i.e. Trump arguing that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to travel to the US since, among other reasons, that would do absolutely nothing to stop terrorism; or the arguments about the dangers of immigrant crime, when immigrants have lower crime rates."

    Which could be reworded as

    "When I think populism is really dangerous is when it involves a demagogue using irrational arguments to exploit people's fears of elites and immigrants and other bad groups that they aren't members of -- i.e. Sanders arguing that free trade shouldn't be permitted because it apparently sends jobs away from America..."

    but then give Sanders a pass as merely making a "liberal critique" because you like the guy?

    **** me sideways that's some robust methodology there tiger.
     
  12. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
     
    ShaneP likes this.
  13. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Yeah it was stupid when you said it before watto
     
  14. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    On the contrary, it's getting more and more obvious that you made this topic just to talk about Sanders. You should rename the topic "Sanders is a populist".
    Bit late though, his role is largely played out.
     
  15. Darth Punk

    Darth Punk JCC Manager star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Nov 25, 2013
    but stabbing a corpse is fun
     
  16. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Yeah but you'll notice that someone comes along and says "because I lubs Sanders, I object".

    No serious political scientist would ever consider him anything but this, but because of basically the reasons I'm talking about (having all the magic answers) he's somehow given a pass.

    Populists are dangerous, Watto. I don't care if people are uncomfortable with their support for one. It changes nothing.

    If we ignore the reason why they're ascendant, well, that's all sorts of bad.
     
  17. Darth Nerdling

    Darth Nerdling Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 20, 2013

    I love how you can achieve almost everything with your immense intelligence except curb your childish psychological need to prove you're the smartest guy in the room. Using sarcasm and strawman arguments don't really really help the discourse either, though they do puff you up more. Just to let you know, this approach may give you the sense that you've "won" the argument because it leaves you with the impression that others can't respond, but really it's just that people don't want to interact with you anymore.

    Now, if you want, you can continue to be a smartass with me. Honestly, I really don't care apart that it's slightly annoying, but I'd prefer to simply have a regular discussion, and honestly, of all the points you bring up, I think this talk of Sanders is a far less intriguing than your analysis of modern society's inability to competently make sense of the ever increasing streams of information we're being exposed to.


    Now onto your re-wording of what I said:

    "When I think populism is really dangerous is when it involves a demagogue using irrational arguments to exploit people's fears of elites and immigrants and other bad groups that they aren't members of -- i.e. Sanders arguing that free trade shouldn't be permitted because it apparently sends jobs away from America..."

    For it to be an irrational argument, it has be a false argument. There is evidence that some free trade details have taken jobs away from America. Also, there is very strong evidence that "race-to-the bottom" competition, which is somewhat like free trade on a state-by-state scale, has reduced wages, labor power, and benefits.

    Very smart people, smarter than me and possibly even you, make nuanced arguments against free trade in some form or another, including Joseph Stiglitz and Noam Chomsky. Stiglitz is critical of free trade agreements and strongly against the TPP. Noam Chomsky supports free trade but only when it provides proper protections for workers: "No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity—that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems"

    Hence, it is not a settled issue that taking a stance against free trade can be described as an irrational argument. Smart, rational people take anti-free trade stances. So, this discredits one aspect of your deconstruction of my definition of populism.

    (Also, as I have admitted, Sanders is short on the details, but I believe when Sanders speaks of "fair trade" he is speaking in accordance with Chomsky's opinion on free trade above, but I may be wrong.)


    Furthermore, I don't think that Sanders, early on, acted more like demagogue (appealing to people's emotions rather than intellects) than any other traditional politician, except perhaps that people identified with his being an angry grump. His citing of facts and figures like -- the 1% has more wealth than the lowest 90%; or income levels remain flat for the middle class, while the very rich have received all the economic gains; or the US is the only developed nation that doesn't offer paid maternity leave or that doesn't have universal health insurance -- is the exact opposite of an emotional appeal. Facts are the very foundation of rational discourse. Many of his speeches were chiefly lists of facts like this. He was mocked for this.

    So again, this aspect of Sanders' rhetoric contradicts your characterization of my description of populism.


    Now here's a speech given by FDR that fits your definition of populism to a "t" -- that is the masses vs elites.



    Here, FDR certainly does fit the definition of populism that you are applying to Sanders, but does that make it bad? No. Not at all.

    If you don't use my definition of populism, then populism is not necessarily a bad thing. FDR was a populist, LBJ too, heck even Ike and his talk of a military-industrial-complex is sort of a populist.

    So, yeah, early on in his campaign, I'd describe Sanders as being this kind of populist, and that's not a bad thing.

    Later on, his rhetoric did change, and he became more what I would describe as a bad populist, the one in keeping with my definition of populism.
     
  18. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001

    But blankets keep us and our inaccurate assumptions warm.
     
    KnightWriter likes this.
  19. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    dARTh Nerding, there's actually very little evidence that globalisation and free trade have that effect. If anything, the actual evidence is completely to the contrary and given there's an oft-cited world bank report out there proving it, I would submit you should read it ahead of making any pronouncements or citing economists improperly (Stiglitz' view is that more recent rounds have lead to unfree trade masquerading as free trade. Given he consistently calls America out on hypocrisy for subsidising industries whilst promoting free trade as a concept, it's hard to see him as a critic of the concept. Just the execution, which isn't frankly free enough. I agree with him).

    The reason Sanders and frankly any other left leaning leader gets a pass is that being left wing is still seen as fashionable and therefore we are squeamish about critiques that may divert attention away from the destruction of the right wing populist (like, you know, resigning from a self-styled independence party in the wake of a vote that you recognise shouldn't have happened and don't want to have to deal with, eh Nige?). I would absolutely call Bernie a demagogue, since he has absolutely appealed to people's anger. Citing figures doesn't absolve him of this label, and I'm unsure why it would since Sanders has shown in areas like job loss and free trade he's completely unwilling to contemplate the wider picture.

    There is absolutely something wrong with society. I can't say for sure what it is, but I'm at least comforted knowing Dan Carlin has also seen it - and as he put it in Common Sense, if we keep ignoring these people for too long, they will kill us for it.

    Whatever the root cause, populists on the left and right pop up and promise answers by focusing anger at elites who are blamed for whatever situation is causing the underlying angst. There's a reason why I listed a time period in the subject line, though it's disappointing nobody appreciates the historical parallels enough to see them.

    You may like Bernie Sanders and that's fine, we all like things which are bad. I have a soft spot for Superman III, some people really like the prequels, and some like Bernie Sanders. They're all bad, we're just uncritically enthralled. But it doesn't mean he's actually proposing an effective or useful remedy, and his election would have done the same thing Trump's did in terms of putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

    Rather than watching KW foolishly tilt at moving windmills for Rogue's enjoyment, or defending the indefensible (Bernie Sanders), shouldn't we at least take a moment to consider why left and right populism is ascendant?
     
    SuperWatto likes this.
  20. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001
    It's rising due to an ongoing middling economic outlook for tens of millions with little relief in sight, failures of proper economics education, liberal leaders and proponents to accurately explain its benefits and admit some of its shortcomings, arrogance of some of those same neoliberal disciples, and an increasing power of the democracy.
     
  21. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    and facebook
     
    ShaneP likes this.
  22. ShaneP

    ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2001

    That would be increasing power of the democracy. FB and twitter both.
     
  23. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    No, not at all. They are tools for the miniature demagogue.
    Democracy is not who-shouts-loudest.
     
  24. Darth Nerdling

    Darth Nerdling Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 20, 2013
    There is not unanimity among economists on this subject, and economists have tended to be slanted towards neoliberalism, especially until recently. They totally dominated until the 2008 financial crisis, and their policies were arguably largely responsible for it.

    Your characterization of Stiglitz is not entirely correct either. This is not solely why he is critical of globalism and the TPP. Stiglitz on TPP and globalism:
    I believe I used the words "race to the bottom" in my post. I've heard Sanders make these similar criticisms of free trade. I haven't heard him talking about raising tariffs or renegotiating trade agreements like Trump has. I agree that Sanders does not have a sophisticated understanding of economics and describes things in simple way, but I think it's mostly because he doesn't know the issues well, because he's talking to a dumb US electorate, and not because he is trying to manipulate the public, well at least not early in his campaign.

    Again, I think it's simply because he doesn't understand the issues in depth and because he's speaking to an electorate.

    And a soft spot for BvS, and unfair bias against ROTS.;)

    I don't like Sanders. I am generally more liberal than Clinton, and I think the Scandinavian model is mostly superior to the US model. However, I was disappointed by the apparent shallowness of Sanders' depth of knowledge and what I would describe as a turn towards populism and false arguments later in his campaign.

    I don't totally agree with you about Sanders, but I really don't care to defend him. I simply responded because you addressed that aspect in my initial post. I would be more interested in your thoughts about other the other things I said in my initial post.

    As I said, this is a subject that interests me. It's something that I've been curious about, and I noticed that you brought up your thoughts about critical thinking and information earlier times in other threads. I wanted to respond then but was afraid it would derail the thread.
     
  25. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    And KW not realising Rogue Ten is having fun with him isn't?

    The critical thinking aspect is absolutely critical. It even goes to what Watto is referring to with his Facebook comment.

    The internet is not a great democratic tool; the democratisation of information is a giant Pandora's Box. I don't think this is especially controversial; it's not pleasant to say "the working class can't make informed decisions because they're generally not educated enough" but it's not inaccurate. I think that the problem we have is a multifaceted one:

    * We've simply lost of lot of wealth from the GFC (which is necessary and cyclical; the real damage, one could argue, is the bailouts stopped capitalism's self-correction from fully occurring)
    * Jobs have disappeared as part of the evolution of the marketplace (it's fruitless to suggest American jobs, for example, could be reinstated as they are too expensive to be competitive. But while we moved on from the death of common professions of yesteryear - the casualties of modernity - we don't move on from blue collar factory work?)
    * Immigration has changed the cultural dynamic of a number of Western countries, bringing benefit in spades and problems in part
    * the capacity to report on more information has increased tenfold with the internet, which has increased the complexity whilst lowering the threshold for what constitutes objective reporting.
    * The average person whose shared uninformed opinions would normally be limited to his mates at the pub or a sympathetic taxi driver now has a number of fora for expression, from message boards to chat rooms to the comments section of newspapers to Facebook - creating vast echo chambers where nuance is enemy and tribalism reigns supreme
    * the perception of politicians is out of touch elites who don't represent the views of these "average" (decidedly average? :p) people
    * economic strain on the middle class is greater than it's ever been.

    This cauldron of simmering discontent is not helped by people demanding simple answers to complex problems. And as we consume more and celebrate the lifestyles of vacuous imbeciles like the Kardashians - only in America could they succeed - the assumption that people are missing out by direct collusion of elites is more entrenched. Understanding the microeconomic or macroeconomic factors of the day, the need for a society of haves and havenots, etc - that's irrelevant to the angry and job insecure.