h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It seems there are of two types, far right and far left. For the first we have Le Pen, Trump, and others from the north of Europe who are getting lots of votes.

In the far left, you can find labelled as populist: Berni Sanders, Hugo Chávez, José Múgica and those called bolivarianos, Jeremy Corbyn... or Podemos, here in Spain.

But what is populism then?
What do you think?
Are we calling populist to fascists?
Can the term populism have a positive connotation?
Is it the same as demagogy?

I don't see Trump as a populist. What has happened, I think, is that voter anger about congressional gridlock pushed many people into voting for someone outside that dysfunctional system.

Trump is not a professional entertainment, but he had a reality TV show, and he has enough personal charm to sell refrigerators to eskimoes -- just the once, of course, because they'll be onto him after that.

If you have bad news and average news for someone, you can make the average news seem good by giving them the bad news first. We saw some pretty bad news from Trump for months this year. He insulted women over their appearance, he demeaned and occasionally threatened minorities, and he thumbed his nose at his own party's leaders.

Now we're hearing from people who now Trump, and they're saying that this was bluster. He's really capable of great charm. You just have to stroke his massive ego. I don't feel like grovelling before him, but I'm just one of the little people who never had a lot of clout anyway.

His unwanted attentions to women over the years isn't "bluster", and you have to be pretty thick-skinned to happily expound on how anyone NOT born of the US is a threat. But hey, just as we didn't exactly win with Trudeau #2, you are pretty much stuck with what needs be for atleast 4 years.

Unless some suggestions of impeachment for fraud and criminal activity happens. In theory, within hours of inauguration . . . In theory, Congress (?) has that option. But as every corner is mostly Republicans, I don't see it happening.

Nice that he's found new jobs for his kids and some of his best money buddies though.

Eight years ago, many of the same people who voted Republican were giving Obama a Democratic-controlled congress. Things change.

We are not going to lose Obamacare completely. It would take 60 votes in the Senate to do that, and there are 48 Democrats there.

The loss of sanity on the Global Warming issue is a problem. The advance of technology shows some promise, though. Kerosene use is down in Africa thanks to reliable solar panels the size of an iPad -- large enough to power one of two light bulbs and a small radio. Solar technology will get better, and people will think of ways to further reduce reliance on fossil fuels. India is going to reduce fossil fuel use. It has to: the air in new Delhi is deadly. China has underground out-of-control coal mine fires. No one is benefiting from this. It makes a huge difference in atmospheric CO2.

People, making decisions in aggregate, can make a difference. But, yes, I deeply regret the loss of sanity at the top of the U.S. government just when Obama was starting to make headway.

Populism (to get back to the original question) is simply an appeal to the large section of the population who are not normally politically active which generally means promoting facile, short-term or local solutions in opposition to the long-term, global agenda of the ruling liberal elite. That politically-inactive majority is by definition uncommitted to any particular ideology and thus can support either left-wing or right-wing politicians, for instance being able to switch from Labour to UKIP without any sense of hypocrisy. Trump is a populist whether he meant to be or not; Corbyn on the other hand is not a populist.

To offer Facile solutions to complex problems is key to understand the triumph of populism, however the term politically- inactive can be applied to most of the voters.

Most people really don´t care about politics after the polls have ended. They hardly follow what´s going on unless they hear, read anything the media highlights, and being the media the herald of corporations with vested interests, the piece of news is one of persuasion and manipulation, instead of information.

I´m reading these days, both in Spanish and English, the same idea about why far right groups are raising and winning. They point to the neoliberal agenda, or as you say, " the global agenda of the liberal elite"
And that is easy to check, for instance, just by looking to the EU policies about inmigration and refugees. How, as Juncker did the other day, can the EU tell US anything about ethics when humanitarian assistence is zero, when the Mediterranean sea is a cementery for thousands of people?
There are more examples of failure seen in the education, health, job wages, unemployment...

Populism or rather, fascism, wouldn´t thrive if we hadn´t all this neoliberal failure around us and if people were more politically educated.

Marie well put

Failure of neoliberalism?

There's the same amount of jobs, they're just not in the same places any more. The education system has graduates pouring out of universities in record numbers. More than that, our universities educate more people from around the world than ever before. Healthwise, people are demonstrably living longer, fitter more active lives.

It's the very success of neo-liberalism that attracts migrants from around the globe.

What has died on it's arse is socialism, Quite right too. They're the ones with facile solutions like "Eat the Rich".

Socialism has its place. The demonization of socialism in the US, and the UK, is making rational discussion nearly impossible.

Some things should be socialized and we don't argue about it because they're not immediately identified as socialist. No one really thinks about how the military, police, and fire departments are inherently socialized. No one is seriously discussing privatizing these institutions in Western industrialized nations. There were once private fire departments. If you paid your fee, you got a "badge" to attach to your property. If your home caught fire and the fire brigade arrived, but you didn't have your badge, your house burned down. If your neighbors had badges, the fire brigade would likely hose down their homes while watching yours burn. Even if you think this might be OK, that someone who didn't pay their fee should suffer the consequences, if their house next to yours burns it will still effect yours, if not by directly damaging your home, buy lowering your property values.

I feel like things like education and health should also be considered this way. Even if you can afford to pay the fee, it benefits you if those around you are protected from crime and fire, educated, and treated for disease.

I also think grand programs like space exploration should have some socialized structure. It shouldn't be completely socialized as I definitely see the value of private ventures. I also see room in healthcare and education for some blend of private and public structure.

But here in the US, so many voters conflate socialism with totalitarian communism and don't see the socialized institutions they rely on every day.

My point in post 5 is that categorising politics in right-wing and left-wing terms is not a useful way to analyse populism. I agree, Maria, that education (and more independent journalism) is essential in giving as many people as possible the necessary tools to make good decisions in a democracy, however the majority of people are far too busy just getting on with their lives to take in that much information.

SWL: The failure of the liberal agenda is shown by the unexpected results of the EU referendum, the US presidential election, the demise of the Labour party and the failure of any part of the ruling elite to recognise just how serious a problem migration is seen by people like yourself.

"I feel like things like education and health should also be considered this way. Even if you can afford to pay the fee, it benefits you if those around you are protected from crime and fire, educated, and treated for disease." [Baron Grim]

If a deadly disease is going around, and most people are inoculated against it, they are less likely to spread it to you and your loved ones.