[toomuchtodo]

Nationalist populism sacrifices academics and intellectuals to create a divide between “the people” and the presumed said “elite,” which is then weaponized for political gain by the actual “elite” (political, economical, etc). These movements rely on emotional resonance and simplified narratives, as opposed to educated, informed discourse.

My crude take on the underlying root cause is resentment, discontent, and similar feelings. Happiness is reality minus expectations, and a whole lot of folks are unhappy life did not turn out how they thought it would.

https://warwick.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/researchers_point_t...

https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/1/1/ksab002/6185295

[AnimalMuppet]

My take is that it's a bit of a two-way street. "Regular" people resent the elites, yes. But the regular people perceive (correctly) that the elites aren't all that interested in the regular people, either.

If the Democrats had been (and had messaged themselves as being) the party of the working class, they would have drained the swamp that Trump's support comes from. Instead, the message was "if you're working class, and you don't support gay marriage and trans people in sports, and you think that abortion is morally wrong, then you are a moral outcast and we are going to destroy your entire culture." They may have been pro-working-class, but they were pro other things more, and those other things were not big concerns for the working class. And many of the working class took a different stance on the cultural issues than the Democratic leadership.

In fact, the Democrats quit cultivating their base, and so their base walked away from them to someone who at least pretended to care about them.

Nationalist populism harvested that. But there has to be something growing before it can be harvested, and nationalist populism didn't sow the seeds.

[panarchy]

It also does this so that when intellectuals call out their bullshit they can more easily dismiss it as hysteria.

[toomuchtodo]

Indeed, but that’s why humiliating them is so effective as a response (think South Park’s latest season). Their outlet for the humiliation and resentment they feel is anger and attempts at grasping power, and when that doesn’t lead to the desired outcome, they have no way to cope with the consequences of not reaching the expected status outcome. They demand respect and control, and to deny them that is to deny them their validation and belief of their value. A bully or authoritarian without control is like a dethroned monarch; still convinced of their right to rule, but forced to live in a world that no longer bends to their demands.

[whotheywut1]

This is circumlocution. Who is they? Them? What? You're just reciting words. What dialectic is this? Ok let me try in random generalization speak...

Nothing in physics requires us to buy into the political documents; if the average person isn't owed anything under the rules, no one is.

Either we're science driven where only politics makes someone special and we should then moderate that because in reality, they are not special, just a button pusher, just a signature. Or we're a bunch of idiots living in a trailer park.

Seems you subscribe to the whole "everything is a mystery to politics" when it's just biology self-selecting and we should fucking moderate that. With violence if necessary. Because fuck them. They aren't owed anything either, they're just manipulating politics.

[whotheywut1]

I say we launch the nukes and tell everyone who leaned into willful ignorance "aw how sad it didn't go the way you wanted."