[HissingMachine]

There have been numerous articles and columns written about the dangers of rising populism in Europe, yet here is a respectable voice advocating populism as the solution for US.

So which is it, the solution or a danger?

[mc32]

Obviously populism is the solution, but only if it’s on your side, otherwise it’s this nefarious out of control thing that perverts political systems and threatens democracy.

This author makes erroneous assertions along the way in support of their thesis. So I don’t think it holds much water.

Soros and the Kochs are some of the biggest political donors and influencers and while they donate massive amounts to progressive causes and libertarian values, they have very little interest in helping working class Americans.

[digitaltrees]

All forms of government have a good form and a destructive form. Democracy is rule of the mob if it tramples individuals liberty. An incompetent, selfish king is a tyrant, a good king that serves society can be highly effective and create a great society. As with all things, it is balancing the extremes as the mean between competing needs or interests is often the best outcome.

[Sharlin]

> Soros and the Kochs are some of the biggest political donors and influencers and while they donate massive amounts to progressive causes and libertarian values, they have very little interest in helping working class Americans.

I think this reinforces the author's point more than opposes it. Who in their right mind thinks the Koch brothers are anything but pro-oligarchy?

[smsm42]

> they have very little interest in helping working class Americans.

What you mean by "helping working class Americans"? I am definitely working (every day, many hours), does my interest count? If I would like for America to become more libertarian (or more socialist), can it be said Koch (or Soros) are helping my interests? Or only a direct ACH transfer counts? Or something in between - what? Every politician I've see has declared they'd be "helping working class Americans" - and they all have diametrically opposed ideas of what that means. One can almost conclude it doesn't mean anything but a meaningless platitude politician has to do along with shaking hands and kissing babies.

[spiralx]

Or you could conclude it's a complex issue that well-meaning people can come to very different views on the causes of and the solutions to. Different viewpoints existing doesn't mean they're all meaningless and/or lies.

[distances]

Did you misunderstand the whole article? It did not vouch for populism in the least.

[HissingMachine]

How so? Populism is by definition an ideologue of regular people against the elites. Or do you have your own definition of populism? Can I hear it?

[PeterisP]

When I see a politician or organization labeled as populist, it usually refers to the (quite common) practice of getting votes from dissatisfied masses by promising them impossible results, which they don't intend on even attempting to achieve.

Populism is not about ideology of regular people against the elites, that'd be apply more to e.g. various socialdemocratic parties who attempt such goals and ideologies but most of them aren't considered populistic especially if they're in power for years and have to actually implement policies instead of talking about vague results that'll magically arrive.

It refers to a tactic of identifying people who are dissatisfied with current reality and also with the realistic short-term prospects of how future is going to unfold for them even if the promises of the other parties arrive and reasonable economic growth and modest systemic improvement happens, and promising them unrealistic, unachievable improvement (often by suggesting major, radical changes that are a change but can't possibly give the effects they promise) - thus giving these voters hope that others don't, filling that (very valid) need and thus getting their votes.

[JohnStrangeII]

Your definition is wrong. Populism is a political strategy based on the oversimplification of issues, inventing scapegoats, and generally appealing to popular "bar talk" as offering solutions to problems that are in reality way more complex. Other symptoms of it are an unwillingness to make compromises, not listening to experts, alluding to conspiration theories, an alleged fighting against the elites and for the "common man on the street" (as long as he's politically aligned), an US versus THEM mentality, anti-intellectualism, and discrediting media and science. All of this makes sense, because the populist needs to be able to sell his oversimplified solutions, and often science, statistics, and, generally speaking, the truth stands in the way. Most problems do not have simple solutions.

Populism is pretty much what used to be called "proto-fascism" by Ecco, but communists can also have a strong populist agenda. Where I live, in Portugal, the communist party used slogans like "Leave Nato, away with the Euro" in general elections - simple recipes that couldn't possibly have beneficial effects and that in reality nobody would implement.

What you define as populism has nothing to do with real-world populism, it's just a construct.

[HissingMachine]

Part of populism is also claiming to be neither left or right on the political spectrum because it can be both or neither, a good example of this is Five Star Movement from Italy. But what is mostly common with populist movements is the appeal to the common man and blaming elites. So how the author of this article isn't advocating for populism is something someone needs to explain to me.

[JohnStrangeII]

I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment, just wanted to correct your definition of populism by a more adequate one that is based on indicators of tendencies. There is no problem identifying right wing and left wing positions or discerning different brands of fascism, populism, socialism, etc. The people who claim that these positions cannot really be distinguished any longer are usually trying to push some sort of extremist agenda. A typical example are the recent "alt right" (= run off the mill Fascism, nothing special about it) attempts to promote the absurd and historically false claim that the German Nazis were left wing, because they choose the phrasing "national socialism". Of course, there are also similar attempts by populists to re-appropriate terms like "populism", that's not very surprising.

Anyway, I'm glad the thread has been flagged.

[makomk]

This is an article very much in the vein of all the ones about the dangers of rising populism, which is generally portrayed as evil oligarchs brainwashing the populace into thinking that by supporting the other side's political views they're fighting back against the oligarchy. What it's advocaing is that the people rise up and fight back against the oligarchs by folliwing his side's political views, likely with some help from billionaires to educate them. Totally different, see.

[smsm42]

> So which is it, the solution or a danger?

Obviously, if my ingroup folks are doing it, it's the solution - we are just appealing to the wisdom of crowds and attracting common people to our cause. However, if outgroup folks do it, they are exploiting the ignorance of the masses and appealing to the basest instincts of the mob, and thus it is a grave danger.

[dgregd]

Regarding housing problem in the US, well known here on HN patio11 has a simple solution: build homes [1]. Does this mean that he is a populist? Or do politicians just call themselves left-wing or right-wing, and in reality both of them represent the interests of landlords, as the article suggests?

I don't known which articles and columns you read. But I am from this European country with rising populism. In my opinion, things are going in a better direction than in the times of non-populist government. The current government fulfills promises and pays broad social benefits, but at the same time this populist government has reduced the budget deficit.

[1] https://twitter.com/patio11/status/939581079328919552