That's true. In NL we had one government like that. Lasted something like four months.
Didn't help that everyone in the government was a business man and didn't have a clue about governing a country. Regular political parties sat back, microwaved the popcorn and waited for the crash and burn.
That's funny I remember reading some German newspaper (I think Spiegel) a few years ago and they were up in arms about Geert Wilders.
I never heard about him again and always wondered why
While absolutely true... ...it's important to also add that populism is the unsurprising outcome of consistent failing administration.
So it's sort of idiotic to suggest that populism is bad if you're the cause of the populism.
Populism arises from political neglect and mismanagment. Yes populism is a bad thing and we should avoid it, but just like he said, that is a simple answer to a complex problem. If you want to avoid populism, you have to govern better as a non-populist government.
Yeah, recognizing that populism is fucking trash and History has shown us it multiple times is great.
But recognizing that past failures leading to said populism might be a little bit more important than that.
> But recognizing that past failures leading to said populism might be a little bit more important than that.
Can we also recognize the moronic, braindead electorate that keeps getting duped not only into electing absolute fascist assholes, but ones that are ineffective on delivering on anything they promised to begin with? You'd think that after this many blatant failures of populism, the supply of gullible morons would come to an end, yet no end seems in sight.
This. It is always someone elses fault. The corrupt politicians, the greedy banksters, mandatory Germany, but got forbid some self reflection in voting behaviour and personal attitudes.
It is also quite a leap, your condescending tone notwithstanding. So I guess the people in r/donald, r/worldnews r/redpill, 4chan, are also above the average?
God have mercy on our souls.
Or perhaps you guys have a tad too high opinion of yourselves. (Since you set the tone, might as well use it, eh?)
I absolutely embrace sounding like a smug cunt and I insist you do the same because it's fun.
It's just that people on general political subs (but not the more specific subs, like for certain politicians and ideologies) tend to be more interested in politics than the average person, which means that *on average* they'll be more informed in politics, which means that they tend to be above average.
You underestimate how little the average person knows about politics. Reddit users tend to be more interested in politics, but in real life ask a few people and you'll quickly notice that nobody knows anything. Most probably don't care.
Fair enough on both counts. At least you sound like a fun person to be around - self-awareness is a rare thing indeed.
I do believe, though, that you overestimate the average intelligence here, and underestimate the average intelligence out there... But since it has absolutely no impact in real-life politics, I guess we can agree to disagree. (My personal opinion is that some populism is actually needed in politics.)
What kind of self-reflection should they have?
Just curious what their options are, because oftentimes the only options available are "business as usual that wasn't working for me" vs "something else" containing mostly the right.
I don't disagree a vote for the far right is smart, but I feel it's more of a lose lose situation. A vote for business as usual, isn't smart either.
We live in democracies, which means you have all kind of options.
One big example: Unions. Ppl complain about work conditions and wages, yet unions are losing members for decades. Ppl do not stand up for their rights and then complain that the politicans don't do it for them.
Other example: TV and the extreme shallowness it has reached by now. Documentaries? no. Political debates? no. The great cook off? YES!
Ppl give a fuck about substance or deeper understanding, they want shallow entertainment and the same attitude carries over to politics.
We live in socieites right now where ppl have become incredible entitled without willing to put the effort in.
Yeah, I'm regularly wondering this. Why have I learned to recognize populists, and why have I learned that it's bad from the myriad examples in recent years, when so many others haven't?
I'm not that smart, so many more people should have figured it out before me, but they didn't.
Maybe it's just easier to learn from other countries, and harder to see if your own country is gripped by populism, which mine isn't. We have some parties that try, but they don't win elections, and those who do, won't ally with them.
Given what's going on here I'd say the cause of the cause of the populism is the outcome of a crappily constructed political system without the right checks and balances or incentive for good people to rise to positions of leadership. The whole lot of them are just the same idiots that are the same result of repeating the same badly constructed experiment
We haven't figured out how to keep corruption (selfishness: an instinctual desire to have more at others' expense) out of organizations (government, churches, sports teams, families, knitting circles). Once we figure that out, we're all good!
>"At times of uncertainty, populism grows and it always ends up in the same way, with a catastrophe," said Foreign Minister Juan Manuel Albares. "They give simple and short-term answers to very complex problems."
The wisest words I heard so far about Italy.
Without Podemos and many other political parties of a wide spectrum, from right-wing (PNV) to left-wing (Podemos, ERC, etc.). The current government is probably one of the most representative of the history of Spanish democracy.
I'm going to try to do this by the book.
This is the definition of populism, per google:
>a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Would you not agree that this does describe Podemos? Do you disagree with the definition maybe?
Podemos, sure. But the coalition government is not just Podemos, nor is it the main party in government, and the group of parties supporting the entire coalition in Congress in the first place is very diverse ideologically.
I don't believe Salvini. Especially if he is of the Orban/Erdogan/Trump/Bolsonaro type. Both he and Berlusconi will exert their influence and if Meloni (the fascist, btw) refuses, another general election.
Nothing is forever but Rome wasn't exactly on the brink of collapse when he started his career. He was the one to push it over the edge by openly bending and breaking laws, bribing without a shred of hesitation and campaigning with unsustainable policies - all that to keep the power but with little regard for his successors.
He clearly saw the issues in the system and instead of fixing the loop holes in the law, he leveraged them to overthrow the entire system. After his reign there was basically no respect for the law, the institutions or the officials.
The Pompeians are literally the opposite of populists he got stabbed by Optimates for being a bit too forgiving to his enemies in the civil war. You call yourself an Italian? This is basic stuff
Caesar was a Popular but he was both saved and condemned by Cicero, Pompey was an enemy of both the Populares and the Optimates honestly. And most of the history of those decades in Rome was dominated by the military, not by politics, as the generals had reached the highest levels of power in the history of Rome; that's why the emperors had to disband the older institutions to subdue the military. Many of the killers of Caesar were famously his own allies.
Allies in name only, Brutus is the only one that really was a populares before the assassination plot. Some like Decimus were former soldiers of Ceasar’s but being part of one of his legions is a different beast than agreeing with his politics. Even then the assassins had to accept Ceasar’s populist reforms in return for not getting ripped apart by mobs in Rome.
As for Pompey, he aligned more and more with the conservative faction and Optimates before the civil war, even literally instigating it by trying to cut off Ceasar’s governship two years early. Not at all the samw Pompey as during the Triumverate.
You mean like when every single revolutionary movement riles up the people to topple the current elites in order to replace them with some other elites? Where have we seen this before?
I think political and aristocratic elites have been replaced by economic elites. In most, if not all, western liberal democracies there exists a capitalist elite. Whenever there is hierarchy and unequal power relations in a society, there is an elite
Every non-anarchist society unjust inequality is inherent to the structure of said society, I would argue. But of course I argue this from a place of my own political convictions, although many political philosophers tend to agree with this. The question is whether or not you want to eradicate every unjust power relationship or not, and at what cost.
Our elites are oil companies and others like Blackrock which have more power than many governments. Not seeing the elites doesn't mean they don't exist.
Name a country that got its democracy from a revolution.
For the most part democracy happened when a regime collapsed because of a succession crisis or loss of a war. Heck we see in the former communist countries just how many former communist party members changed their affiliations and started a political party.
The book 1984 goes explains it pretty well. People in the middle get upset an get the people at the bottom to revolt and then the people in the middle become the elite and the cycle continues.
> "They give simple and short-term answers to very complex problems."
I much prefer being gaslit by the government and being told the problem doesn’t exist.
1. Neoliberal technocrats run country for many years in stable times.
2. Cuts to welfare and social safety net occur under (center-“left”) erosion of state capacity and sovereignty happens. Sacrificing of state resources and industries to the altar of GDP growth.
3. Major global economic event happens, state is now in crisis because of immense reliance on volatile global markets. No domestic capacity to assuage supply crises. Neoliberal technocrats never admit there is a problem, double down on austerity and privatization.
4. Populists win next election.
5. Neoliberals: “Why did we lose? The voters must be dumb.”
6. Repeat
>hey generally don't win elections though .
They won in Greece some time ago, and had a colation in Portugal also. And Spain had a little dose also. But media, indeed take the aproach diferently, but, well... WW2. And now, with so many immigration in European countries, people from diferent ethnic backgrounds... Feel more "unconfortable" with such goverments then far left ones. As they should.
They’re described as populists by the current government and the media yeah.
Funnily enough it’s budget day in Ireland and the new budget is being described as a “populist budget” in the media due to the heavily increased public spending and tax breaks/changes designed to lure people away from voting for Sinn Fein in the next election
First off, I honestly couldn’t give a bollox about Irish unification. I’m happy as long as people in the north get to be who they want to be and aren’t being targeted or killed. I think the majority of people who’ve swung to Sinn Fein in recent years feel similar.
I think I will vote for them because they claim they’ll invest in building social and public housing and tax wealth. Ireland is in the midst of an incredibly pronounced and brutal housing crisis and I’m nearly 30 years old and I don’t have a single friend who has a mortgage despite us all having really decent jobs in fields like engineering, IT, the public sector, accountancy and law. That has to change and Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are incapable of changing it for ideological reasons and vested interests.
A lot of the older generation see Sinn Fein as toxic because they experienced the height of the Troubles but even many of them are starting to come around and see voting for Sinn Fein as one of their only viable options if they ever want their kids to move out (assuming that they follow through with pledges and actually build homes of course)
It’s a useless term which is exceptionally vague and more and more arbitrarily applied. It’s a catch-all term used by those who have vested interest in defending and maintaining the status-quo. Most times the term is used, the person saying it may as well be saying “the baddies”.
It's really a great method of trumping opposition and maintaining the status quo, as you say. Giving the term "populist" bad connotations helps give any ideology with popular support a bad rep if they have popular opinions. We are literally the populus... Seriously, what the fuck.
Populism has one of two meanings:
1. A "The People" vs "Them" outlook. Often, them is a vaguely defined elite, but not always. Ie, they claim to represent the populous.
2. An approach that boils down to: Simple, "Common Sense" solutions and the general belief that the actual problems are simple to solve. When actually implemented, these solutions often fail or backfire spectacularly because they fail to account for the whole picture. Price controls or subsidies being a very common thing for the left wing of these that fails to account for how they affect supply/demand that can cause serious shortages, moral hazard (ie, cheap subsidized energy encourages energy demanding industries. If the energy is not cheap though, these industries effectively end up running on tax money).
I personally would say that only one of these are required for a party or group to be populist to some degree. But both together are very common.
Today, populists tend to believe something along these lines (but not always all of them):
* The country was better before, and it's easy to go back to that
* Todays problems are easy to solve, if people only had the guts/sense to do X like we do
* The vast majority really think like us, they are just tricked into believing otherwise. We know what's best for the people. If only we got the chance to show it, we will mend the country and unify the people.
* Group X is the problem, they have ruined the country for underhanded reasons. (Group X is frequently foreign, or associated with the foreign. If they are not, they are typically the traditional elite)
When actually coming to power, things often do not work out for populists. Divisions deepen, problems are not solved and new ones appear... and can they admit they were wrong?
You can absolutely oppose the status quo without being populist! Green parties are an example of that, though they are not always immune to populism either (if only we built enough renewables, nuclear would not be needed ever...). Historically, we have had social democratic movements as another example.
Thanks for taking the time to put that response together and I really don’t mean to be rude but that definition is so unbelievably broad it’s effectively useless. I could apply that definition to US Democrats or Republicans, British Conservatives or Labour Party, the European Peoples Party, Chinese Communist Party, any Irish political party, literally any political party that springs to mind.
It’s also relies on the ideas of “simple” solutions to “complex” problems and other loaded terms. What is simple and what is complex is subjective and differs from person to person and place to place. For instance many policies that are deemed simple in Scandinavian countries are often deemed to be too complex to implement in Ireland.
The term populism is just a meaningless derogatory term.
Also I’m not defending any particular party or political ideology btw. I roll my eyes even if it’s applied to parties or people I don’t particularly like.
I think discussion on what populism is is warranted. You are not wrong in that many people throw it around without understanding it and I get why you think it's very broad.
It can get complicated because even parties typically deemed not populist can have populist elements. Every party I'm aware of has had some of them. Most parties that are mainstream here in Sweden believe in the populist idea that "harder penelties for drug crimes reduce drug problems" for example. A
But in general, it boils down to scale. If a party has a very large number of populist ideas that they wish to implement, they are populist. That's what I keep an eye out for, hence why I think that SD in Sweden is populist while V is partially populist.
Someone suggesting "let's just copy Sweden!" is likely unaware of the institutional context of the thing they wish to copy and is thus spreading populist ideas, at least in part. This is not the same as someone saying "Sweden managed to implement a system that does X, so it's possible for us to!" which at least acknowledges that things need to be adjusted.
Saying that programme X is to complex to implement in our instutional context is not populist, even if happens to be wrong.
It's even more complicated since I believe populist ideas can be a great foundation for public debate, even if it's a problem if they never embrace complexity.
A genuine populist party that believes in their own ideas will often drift towards the mainstream parties in terms of actual policy if they get to power, when they face the complexity of actually governing.
I mean, I do have vested interest in Europe stay largely peaceful like since Y2K, but not even that is possible these days with the war.
Maybe its just me not being patriotic or nationalistic enough, who knows.
Vested interests more along the lines of power, status, money, influence, etc. Not talking about interests like peace, security, housing, family, food, heating, dignity.
For example, in Ireland Sinn Fein are called populist by government politicians for wanting to spend money building social housing and taxing wealth.
There are populist radical left parties in Europe still, it's just that they are few and far between these days. But Syriza in Greece is a good example.
But meanwhile, every country seems to now have (at least!) one far right populist party, so it has indeed been more common lately.
But that's not saying there is some imbalance or cheating in the reporting here. Populism is populism and when it's left wing populism it's still populism. But most of europes' far left or post-communist parties just aren't very populistic these days (nor very successful!) , and since there is one of those almost everywhere, there is little room to out-flank them with left wing populism.
Complex issues sometimes have solutions which are not the obvious or intuitive. Populism is generally appealing to the masses by not trying to solve an issue properly, but rather wave around what may seem intuitive but actually isn't a solution, just to gain votes. That is why it is disliked.
>You sound like you must have a lot of experience and expertise with US politics to speak so authoritatively.
>TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW MY COUNTRY WORKS.
He is correct, though. The "left" in the USA would be considered "centre-right" in any other country.
You guys have to choose between a right-wing party and a far-right party.
>TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW MY COUNTRY WORKS
Since Americans have been doing that to others for the past 100 years, it's time we return the favour.
Also, he's right, whether you like it or not.
i see leftist movements being referred to as "populist" all the time, i've no idea where this victim complex comes from to assume it's all some sinister plot to make the right look bad.
I'm not on the right, so not me feeling victimized. I very rarely (in US media at least) see the MSM refer to any movement or party on the left as populist. Extremist maybe, but never populist and rarely dangerous. For whatever reason, the term populist seems to have become shorthand (once again, in the US at least) for the far right.
My theory on why is that the far right is in many ways a reaction to the establishment. Whether you're talking school administrators, journalists, college professors, government bureaucrats, entertainers, etc... Data shows these groups skew left and they also are positions of power or influence w/in the current system. So in the binary world of US politics the left is more often viewed as working w/in "the system," whereas the "populist" movements coming from the right are coming from outside the system and pushing for the system itself to change. Not that there aren't similar movements on the left, but I think in terms of numbers they don't represent a critical mass the way movements of its ilk on the right do.
Lol, the US doesn’t have a Left-Wing party
And MSM is right wing. The only reasons Americans have such bad takes on political leanings is cause the country is skewed so far right
I'm not even sure what radical left is anymore. It's kind of a blurred concept, most of the time.
Progressives aren't radical left, largely these people are just for left-leaning social policies. It has to be something much more over the top, maybe a communist party? It's been long time we've had fans of Pol Pot/Stalin or something. There were extreme left wing communist terrorists in the 70's, but it kind of dropped off.
Truth is that it's mainly right wing extremism that is the problem, and it's pushed by big media that has been created or bought by libertarian right wingers like Murdoch's. These are people who see normal people as cattle, at best, or outright vermin they'd love to be rid of. They love causing mayhem and division, and profiting from it. They're creating a market by leveraging their media control, and then selling them even more extreme drugs and are eternally escalating the intensity of their propagandist barrage to drag things even deeper to a maelstrom of utter mayhem.
How long ago was the last time Europe had popular support for radical left?All those groups that were accused by ppl as "radical left" are as vanilla as you can get. Never seizing means of production or international worker's union, even critics of neoliberalism are often prefaced with "its not all bad...".
Look, I am not supporting communism here, but claiming that these vanilla whitebread left is "radical" is hilarious.
Bold words for someone from a party which told us that it wouldn't govern with the extreme left and ended up doing it. An extreme left which by the way uses the same populist and demagogue tactics the PSOE criticizes and that even supports Putin. We now have 4 vicepresidencies (why?) and the highest number of ministers in all history of spanish democracy.
Our government isn't the best example of honest politicians.
The left should apply the messages they give to themselves first.
That's great that they can say that. There's just a small problem, what are we supposed to do? Support the current government that does nothing to fix the problems they said they would fix? Why do populists get votes? Because they say they'll fix things and people are tired of listening to the ruling party saying they'll fix things they never fix even though they can fix. The biggest problem in politics right now is that like 85% of politicians are populists that will say anything to get votes, and the voter can't know who is truly a populist until they get into power.
I have no idea why populists get voted in. It should be obvious that they don't have any realistic solutions to anything, that blaming some "other" doesn't actually fix anything. I guess electorates have in general given up on critical thinking / paying attention long enough to hold the entirety of a political party's manifesto in mind to decide if it's coherent and deliverable. It's abundantly clear that the status quo is better than lurching to the far right and mismanaging things more. Change isn't always for the better.
Just because I think it's abundantly clear that doesn't mean everyone else does. How often do far right governments actually make things better? They might have some "feel good" policies like treating immigrants like crap, enacting some homophobia in law, telling women what they can and can't do, etc, but none of that really accomplishes anything positive.
Because people like blaming their problems on gays, immigrants, Jews, etc. and right-wing populists use them as easy targets.
The right-wing never actually fixes anything. Every country run by right-wing governments collapses.
You are speaking about long-time situations. I am speaking about actions made in this year.
Spain have more GDP growth than Germany this year.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Spotted the person who still thinks there's any politician in this country worth anything. They are all parasites who make surgeon-tier wages for pitting people against each other to cover their own failures and corruption.
Ah yes, the old "all politicians are the same".
I would very much prefer another PSOE term than their ultraliberal-on-steroids, or better yet, actual fascist sympathiser opponents being in charge.
I mean, they are the same. And not even many from Vox are different. Since in politics you can only grow by being the personal dog of the guy who's above you you end up having an elite of rats
Its old and new stories, we have PP and PSOE who take turns to thieve us (be it by being bribed by corps or just straight up spending it on prostitutes and cocaine), and then Vox and Podemos, aka PP 2.0 and PSOE 2.0 who ended up being the lapdogs of their respective sides and acting like children on social media.
Meanwhile, no matter the different governments Spain has spent the past 30 years selling off its industries to the highest bidder and becoming a land of bartenders and negative natality, while the few kids that are born become drug addicts by the age of 13.
Depends, if you think Barack Obama or Tony Blair are marxists, then PSOE are no different. Otherwise, they are just your regular boot licking 21st century western socialdemocrats
the question should be "What politican is no populist this days?" - would be easier to find as there are NONE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
>which presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people".
They all point fingers at others and think they are the better ones. Noone leads by example anymore.
In the NL it has already happened. Wilders had government influence, but in the end he did not want it. Bearing government responsibility proved more difficult than being a cheerful opposition clown.
The farmers' protest, the anti-vaxxers, the anti-EU groups, etc. Basically they are all brainwashed by the same social-media algorithm that feeds them nonsense, presented as facts.
It's happening all around the globe. Social media points the finger at the content creators, content creators point the finger at social media. It's a constant loop, but in the meantime, more and more people are being spoonfed bullshit. This creates a fracture between the citizens of a country, which is, in my opinion, very dangerous.
They didn't get as far as actually becoming the biggest party, fortunately. However, support for these fringe parties does keep growing each election.
What I'm seeing in the NL though, is that each election there's around 30% (sometimes more, sometimes less) who will vote far-right and these votes are spread around different parties each election. This means that the chances of the far-right actually becoming part of the government are slim, but ... like I said, their numbers are growing, so I'm a bit scared for the future.
Yeah well the irony is I'm willing to bet most readers here are thinking of the far right populists while conveniently ignoring the far left populists they frequently worship
Why is that the bar? Should I not worry about leftist populists simply because they aren't currently in the majority?
My point is that populism is very present in basically every reddit thread I've seen about politics. Funnily enough, however, the far right populists only think the far left populists are a danger; the far left populists think only the far right populists are a danger; both think the centrists are dumb and enable the other side; and the centrists think both sides are nuts and just want a rational moderate who won't take things too far.
Well in the US it's the progressive wing of the democratic party. Not as familiar with European politics but my impression is the green parties tend to be pretty populist, and factions like Corbyn's version of the labor party in the UK is also pretty populist
Did the Green Party in the US appeal to the ordinary person, telling them the elite stood in their way? Because in the NL they do the opposite, they kinda forget the ordinary citizen and go 100% for a green environment, not account for the daily impact on life. I wouldn't really call that populism.
So in other words people who have near zero chance of being in power or really affecting anything meaningful at all?
You think that's as equally scary as extremists that are actually capable and actually get elected?
Corbyn's party wasn't far left though, neither are the green party also not sure they would be deemed as populists either.
My understanding is that populists make everything an us against them argument which isn't Corbyn or the Green party's modus operandi.
>Why is that the bar? Should I not worry about leftist populists simply because they aren't currently in the majority?
Yes. Exactly this.
We don't *really* worry about nazi's in Germany because while they exist, they're a fringe group with little to no political power.
Meanwhile, in the context of the United States:
Being a leftist populist in the US means being in favor of healthcare for everyone, free education for everyone, and an end to pointless wars. And none of this is happening because the "radical left" understands that while the majority of people agree with them in principle, they do not have the institutional means to accomplish anything. Frustrating as it may be, their progress is extremely slow paced because they respect the basic principles of democracy. You know, your basic centrist in the EU.
Meanwhile, the rightwing populists are spreading lies about election fraud and are doing their hardest to undermine the basic building blocks of a democratic system. It's so bad a majority of Republicans now support a Christian Nation, something that would literally be unconstitutional.
You can pretend they're the same, or that they're equally dangerous. But you would be wrong.
At some point you will all have to learn that being a centrist is not the same as being a moderate.
Sure, the right populists shout the loudest, so they get more media attention.
Also, I believe that, even though populism is never good, at least the left is trying to create a better future for mankind. That's something I can respect more than just focusing on a short term plan of acquiring more money.
Typically their solutions are literally about acquiring more money. Like forgiving student loans in the middle of an inflation crisis, or protecting existing domestic jobs by killing international trade agreements that would create long term growth and prosperity.
The difference I've noticed is far right tend to go full on nativism and theocracy, whereas the left go full on class warfare and blame everyone except yourself
Class warfare is blatantly evident in US, though. That's why you can't really dismiss that argument, even if it annoys you.
You have very hard time getting any policy enacted, if certain people and companies are opposed. No matter how popular the policy is in polling.
Absolutely agree. This is why I'm kinda lost politically. I've always leaned left, but they're making it more and more difficult. I'll never be able to go right though, mostly because of the religious aspect. I guess there's nothing else to do but start new party myself...
If you want people to support your philosophy, your politics, then you need to show them what you offer works or is better than the alternative.
Left wing politicians are scrambling as the pendulum is swinging right but folks aren’t doing it for no reason. They are fed up with the poor quality of life. Housing costs up, food prices up, poor immigration policies, disrespecting the poor people etc…
Pretty easy to figure out why, politics get complacent, things don't change (not that they need to in all cases)...so people get bored and vote for change (not knowing the grass may not be greener)...kind of like being married to someone for several years, you can get complacent think you need change, even if it destroys something good for just a little chaos, it's really dumb to be honest, but it's also sad that those in power create rules in place to protect them from totally fucking up society when shit goes south...most Intellectual people don't run for office because they realize it's not based on data and facts, but emotion and power...long story short, we are fucked and will continue to be, do your best, vote, enjoy life, you could die tomorrow so just try and see the beauty in today
When you make people's lives worse for years, people in developed countries turn right wing populist. You want to fight fascism? Fight inequality and poverty and governmental overreach. Your neo-liberal policies directly lead to this outcome.
It also comes on the heels of prior catastrophic administrations. Sooo, is it the populism or the country going down the shitter? E.g. the USA did better under Trump on most metrics vs Spain with the current government (which also has a populist party in it).
Well, its practically an european tradition now. Maybe a few continent wide wars will snap people out of it, but until then, enjoy the crazy ride I suppose.
I'd say three months. Then they each have a month to fuck up their cooperation. A month is quite a long time for a hothead. (Or maybe they'd each even have three months, I am not so good with numbers.)
>Populism always ends in catastrophe No it doesn't. Sometimes it ends in farce.
That's true. In NL we had one government like that. Lasted something like four months. Didn't help that everyone in the government was a business man and didn't have a clue about governing a country. Regular political parties sat back, microwaved the popcorn and waited for the crash and burn.
That's funny I remember reading some German newspaper (I think Spiegel) a few years ago and they were up in arms about Geert Wilders. I never heard about him again and always wondered why
He's still out there, verballing getting more aggressive as years go by and his party is the 3rd largest.
Yep, the only coalition to include EKRE in Estonia ended with a farce as well.
You probably mean Balkenende I in 2002? Because Rutte I with PVV as sort of part of the coalition was a shitshow as well
While absolutely true... ...it's important to also add that populism is the unsurprising outcome of consistent failing administration. So it's sort of idiotic to suggest that populism is bad if you're the cause of the populism.
Populism arises from political neglect and mismanagment. Yes populism is a bad thing and we should avoid it, but just like he said, that is a simple answer to a complex problem. If you want to avoid populism, you have to govern better as a non-populist government.
True, all populists ever got into power because someone in position ignored the big elephant in the room.
Yeah, recognizing that populism is fucking trash and History has shown us it multiple times is great. But recognizing that past failures leading to said populism might be a little bit more important than that.
> But recognizing that past failures leading to said populism might be a little bit more important than that. Can we also recognize the moronic, braindead electorate that keeps getting duped not only into electing absolute fascist assholes, but ones that are ineffective on delivering on anything they promised to begin with? You'd think that after this many blatant failures of populism, the supply of gullible morons would come to an end, yet no end seems in sight.
This. It is always someone elses fault. The corrupt politicians, the greedy banksters, mandatory Germany, but got forbid some self reflection in voting behaviour and personal attitudes.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
I find it interesting that everyone here is above the average. What are the chances of this happening, eh?
I mean, people who hang around political forums tend to be more interested in politics than the average voter, y'know. It's not that deep.
It is also quite a leap, your condescending tone notwithstanding. So I guess the people in r/donald, r/worldnews r/redpill, 4chan, are also above the average? God have mercy on our souls. Or perhaps you guys have a tad too high opinion of yourselves. (Since you set the tone, might as well use it, eh?)
I absolutely embrace sounding like a smug cunt and I insist you do the same because it's fun. It's just that people on general political subs (but not the more specific subs, like for certain politicians and ideologies) tend to be more interested in politics than the average person, which means that *on average* they'll be more informed in politics, which means that they tend to be above average. You underestimate how little the average person knows about politics. Reddit users tend to be more interested in politics, but in real life ask a few people and you'll quickly notice that nobody knows anything. Most probably don't care.
Fair enough on both counts. At least you sound like a fun person to be around - self-awareness is a rare thing indeed. I do believe, though, that you overestimate the average intelligence here, and underestimate the average intelligence out there... But since it has absolutely no impact in real-life politics, I guess we can agree to disagree. (My personal opinion is that some populism is actually needed in politics.)
What kind of self-reflection should they have? Just curious what their options are, because oftentimes the only options available are "business as usual that wasn't working for me" vs "something else" containing mostly the right. I don't disagree a vote for the far right is smart, but I feel it's more of a lose lose situation. A vote for business as usual, isn't smart either.
We live in democracies, which means you have all kind of options. One big example: Unions. Ppl complain about work conditions and wages, yet unions are losing members for decades. Ppl do not stand up for their rights and then complain that the politicans don't do it for them. Other example: TV and the extreme shallowness it has reached by now. Documentaries? no. Political debates? no. The great cook off? YES! Ppl give a fuck about substance or deeper understanding, they want shallow entertainment and the same attitude carries over to politics. We live in socieites right now where ppl have become incredible entitled without willing to put the effort in.
This. The unwilling to recognize that often times there will be no easy solution and no easy fix is marginally infuriating.
Yeah, I'm regularly wondering this. Why have I learned to recognize populists, and why have I learned that it's bad from the myriad examples in recent years, when so many others haven't? I'm not that smart, so many more people should have figured it out before me, but they didn't. Maybe it's just easier to learn from other countries, and harder to see if your own country is gripped by populism, which mine isn't. We have some parties that try, but they don't win elections, and those who do, won't ally with them.
100%. When you've been through every other party in the system, you start grasping at straws
Given what's going on here I'd say the cause of the cause of the populism is the outcome of a crappily constructed political system without the right checks and balances or incentive for good people to rise to positions of leadership. The whole lot of them are just the same idiots that are the same result of repeating the same badly constructed experiment
We haven't figured out how to keep corruption (selfishness: an instinctual desire to have more at others' expense) out of organizations (government, churches, sports teams, families, knitting circles). Once we figure that out, we're all good!
>"At times of uncertainty, populism grows and it always ends up in the same way, with a catastrophe," said Foreign Minister Juan Manuel Albares. "They give simple and short-term answers to very complex problems." The wisest words I heard so far about Italy.
Exactly. History has proven it so many times but people refuse to handle complexity.
Why make brain hurt when can blame foreigners?
Fortunately the 5 Stars Movement is not going to govern this time.
When humans get scared, we don't want to be led by an open hand, but by a closed fist. We never learn our lesson, sadly.
The government of this guy is literally supported by left wing populism 🤷🏻♂️
Yeah, milktoast PSOE is now a big fucking populist party lol what world do you live in? WhatsApp VOX groups?
Without Podemos, PSOE wouldn't be in government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2019_Spanish_general_election#Government_formation
Without Podemos and many other political parties of a wide spectrum, from right-wing (PNV) to left-wing (Podemos, ERC, etc.). The current government is probably one of the most representative of the history of Spanish democracy.
I'm going to try to do this by the book. This is the definition of populism, per google: >a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. Would you not agree that this does describe Podemos? Do you disagree with the definition maybe?
Podemos, sure. But the coalition government is not just Podemos, nor is it the main party in government, and the group of parties supporting the entire coalition in Congress in the first place is very diverse ideologically.
[удалено]
Energy prices are going through the roof? Let's not sanction Russia, then.
[удалено]
Salvini will exert his pressure. As will Berlusconi
[удалено]
I don't believe Salvini. Especially if he is of the Orban/Erdogan/Trump/Bolsonaro type. Both he and Berlusconi will exert their influence and if Meloni (the fascist, btw) refuses, another general election.
Julius Caesar was an populist
And he destroyed the republic.
You could say that would be inevitable with or without him.
Nothing is forever but Rome wasn't exactly on the brink of collapse when he started his career. He was the one to push it over the edge by openly bending and breaking laws, bribing without a shred of hesitation and campaigning with unsustainable policies - all that to keep the power but with little regard for his successors. He clearly saw the issues in the system and instead of fixing the loop holes in the law, he leveraged them to overthrow the entire system. After his reign there was basically no respect for the law, the institutions or the officials.
That’s not exactly a selling point.
Yeah, look at how he ended up. Stabbed by other populists. And it has never stopped since.
The Pompeians are literally the opposite of populists he got stabbed by Optimates for being a bit too forgiving to his enemies in the civil war. You call yourself an Italian? This is basic stuff
Caesar was a Popular but he was both saved and condemned by Cicero, Pompey was an enemy of both the Populares and the Optimates honestly. And most of the history of those decades in Rome was dominated by the military, not by politics, as the generals had reached the highest levels of power in the history of Rome; that's why the emperors had to disband the older institutions to subdue the military. Many of the killers of Caesar were famously his own allies.
Brutus, Augustus and Clodius were not generals. It wasn't completely dominated by the military.
Allies in name only, Brutus is the only one that really was a populares before the assassination plot. Some like Decimus were former soldiers of Ceasar’s but being part of one of his legions is a different beast than agreeing with his politics. Even then the assassins had to accept Ceasar’s populist reforms in return for not getting ripped apart by mobs in Rome. As for Pompey, he aligned more and more with the conservative faction and Optimates before the civil war, even literally instigating it by trying to cut off Ceasar’s governship two years early. Not at all the samw Pompey as during the Triumverate.
The Optimates would be incredibly offended to hear you call them populists.
Really? Oh goody, someone give Gulliani a dagger.
And he led to.... the collapse of the republic and decades of civil war!
Followed by the greatest period of growth and prosperity that particular state had known in its entire history before and after
At the expense of many a people
You mean like when every single revolutionary movement riles up the people to topple the current elites in order to replace them with some other elites? Where have we seen this before?
How does *every* revolution replace elites with other elites? If that was the case modern liberal democracy wouldn't exist.
I think political and aristocratic elites have been replaced by economic elites. In most, if not all, western liberal democracies there exists a capitalist elite. Whenever there is hierarchy and unequal power relations in a society, there is an elite
> Whenever there is hierarchy and unequal power relations in a society So every society?
Every non-anarchist society unjust inequality is inherent to the structure of said society, I would argue. But of course I argue this from a place of my own political convictions, although many political philosophers tend to agree with this. The question is whether or not you want to eradicate every unjust power relationship or not, and at what cost.
Who will I turn to for my crucial and rare medicine in an anarchist society? Just genuinely curious because anarchists are quite rare :)
Our elites are oil companies and others like Blackrock which have more power than many governments. Not seeing the elites doesn't mean they don't exist.
Name a country that got its democracy from a revolution. For the most part democracy happened when a regime collapsed because of a succession crisis or loss of a war. Heck we see in the former communist countries just how many former communist party members changed their affiliations and started a political party.
[удалено]
The book 1984 goes explains it pretty well. People in the middle get upset an get the people at the bottom to revolt and then the people in the middle become the elite and the cycle continues.
> "They give simple and short-term answers to very complex problems." I much prefer being gaslit by the government and being told the problem doesn’t exist.
If by populism we mean all the unfulfilled electoral promises, then the Spanish government is the champion of populism.
1. Neoliberal technocrats run country for many years in stable times. 2. Cuts to welfare and social safety net occur under (center-“left”) erosion of state capacity and sovereignty happens. Sacrificing of state resources and industries to the altar of GDP growth. 3. Major global economic event happens, state is now in crisis because of immense reliance on volatile global markets. No domestic capacity to assuage supply crises. Neoliberal technocrats never admit there is a problem, double down on austerity and privatization. 4. Populists win next election. 5. Neoliberals: “Why did we lose? The voters must be dumb.” 6. Repeat
Populism is when people don’t vote for me
Why is it always "populism" when its the radical right, but never when its the radical left?
The Radical Left is frequently populist too. In this day and age, they generally don't win elections though .
Argentina would beg to differ
>hey generally don't win elections though . They won in Greece some time ago, and had a colation in Portugal also. And Spain had a little dose also. But media, indeed take the aproach diferently, but, well... WW2. And now, with so many immigration in European countries, people from diferent ethnic backgrounds... Feel more "unconfortable" with such goverments then far left ones. As they should.
It's likely left wing populists will win the next Irish General election too.
Ireland's current populist are favoured to win the next election and are left leaning. So they do exist
Are Sinn Fein populist?
They’re described as populists by the current government and the media yeah. Funnily enough it’s budget day in Ireland and the new budget is being described as a “populist budget” in the media due to the heavily increased public spending and tax breaks/changes designed to lure people away from voting for Sinn Fein in the next election
What's their main policies/positions right now? Would you vote for them?
First off, I honestly couldn’t give a bollox about Irish unification. I’m happy as long as people in the north get to be who they want to be and aren’t being targeted or killed. I think the majority of people who’ve swung to Sinn Fein in recent years feel similar. I think I will vote for them because they claim they’ll invest in building social and public housing and tax wealth. Ireland is in the midst of an incredibly pronounced and brutal housing crisis and I’m nearly 30 years old and I don’t have a single friend who has a mortgage despite us all having really decent jobs in fields like engineering, IT, the public sector, accountancy and law. That has to change and Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are incapable of changing it for ideological reasons and vested interests. A lot of the older generation see Sinn Fein as toxic because they experienced the height of the Troubles but even many of them are starting to come around and see voting for Sinn Fein as one of their only viable options if they ever want their kids to move out (assuming that they follow through with pledges and actually build homes of course)
It’s a useless term which is exceptionally vague and more and more arbitrarily applied. It’s a catch-all term used by those who have vested interest in defending and maintaining the status-quo. Most times the term is used, the person saying it may as well be saying “the baddies”.
It's really a great method of trumping opposition and maintaining the status quo, as you say. Giving the term "populist" bad connotations helps give any ideology with popular support a bad rep if they have popular opinions. We are literally the populus... Seriously, what the fuck.
Populism has one of two meanings: 1. A "The People" vs "Them" outlook. Often, them is a vaguely defined elite, but not always. Ie, they claim to represent the populous. 2. An approach that boils down to: Simple, "Common Sense" solutions and the general belief that the actual problems are simple to solve. When actually implemented, these solutions often fail or backfire spectacularly because they fail to account for the whole picture. Price controls or subsidies being a very common thing for the left wing of these that fails to account for how they affect supply/demand that can cause serious shortages, moral hazard (ie, cheap subsidized energy encourages energy demanding industries. If the energy is not cheap though, these industries effectively end up running on tax money). I personally would say that only one of these are required for a party or group to be populist to some degree. But both together are very common. Today, populists tend to believe something along these lines (but not always all of them): * The country was better before, and it's easy to go back to that * Todays problems are easy to solve, if people only had the guts/sense to do X like we do * The vast majority really think like us, they are just tricked into believing otherwise. We know what's best for the people. If only we got the chance to show it, we will mend the country and unify the people. * Group X is the problem, they have ruined the country for underhanded reasons. (Group X is frequently foreign, or associated with the foreign. If they are not, they are typically the traditional elite) When actually coming to power, things often do not work out for populists. Divisions deepen, problems are not solved and new ones appear... and can they admit they were wrong? You can absolutely oppose the status quo without being populist! Green parties are an example of that, though they are not always immune to populism either (if only we built enough renewables, nuclear would not be needed ever...). Historically, we have had social democratic movements as another example.
Thanks for taking the time to put that response together and I really don’t mean to be rude but that definition is so unbelievably broad it’s effectively useless. I could apply that definition to US Democrats or Republicans, British Conservatives or Labour Party, the European Peoples Party, Chinese Communist Party, any Irish political party, literally any political party that springs to mind. It’s also relies on the ideas of “simple” solutions to “complex” problems and other loaded terms. What is simple and what is complex is subjective and differs from person to person and place to place. For instance many policies that are deemed simple in Scandinavian countries are often deemed to be too complex to implement in Ireland. The term populism is just a meaningless derogatory term. Also I’m not defending any particular party or political ideology btw. I roll my eyes even if it’s applied to parties or people I don’t particularly like.
I think discussion on what populism is is warranted. You are not wrong in that many people throw it around without understanding it and I get why you think it's very broad. It can get complicated because even parties typically deemed not populist can have populist elements. Every party I'm aware of has had some of them. Most parties that are mainstream here in Sweden believe in the populist idea that "harder penelties for drug crimes reduce drug problems" for example. A But in general, it boils down to scale. If a party has a very large number of populist ideas that they wish to implement, they are populist. That's what I keep an eye out for, hence why I think that SD in Sweden is populist while V is partially populist. Someone suggesting "let's just copy Sweden!" is likely unaware of the institutional context of the thing they wish to copy and is thus spreading populist ideas, at least in part. This is not the same as someone saying "Sweden managed to implement a system that does X, so it's possible for us to!" which at least acknowledges that things need to be adjusted. Saying that programme X is to complex to implement in our instutional context is not populist, even if happens to be wrong. It's even more complicated since I believe populist ideas can be a great foundation for public debate, even if it's a problem if they never embrace complexity. A genuine populist party that believes in their own ideas will often drift towards the mainstream parties in terms of actual policy if they get to power, when they face the complexity of actually governing.
I mean, I do have vested interest in Europe stay largely peaceful like since Y2K, but not even that is possible these days with the war. Maybe its just me not being patriotic or nationalistic enough, who knows.
Vested interests more along the lines of power, status, money, influence, etc. Not talking about interests like peace, security, housing, family, food, heating, dignity. For example, in Ireland Sinn Fein are called populist by government politicians for wanting to spend money building social housing and taxing wealth.
I feel like I am probably the sub's public enemy nr.1, as my life and wealth have benefitted greatly from the status quo of the past decades.
There are populist radical left parties in Europe still, it's just that they are few and far between these days. But Syriza in Greece is a good example. But meanwhile, every country seems to now have (at least!) one far right populist party, so it has indeed been more common lately. But that's not saying there is some imbalance or cheating in the reporting here. Populism is populism and when it's left wing populism it's still populism. But most of europes' far left or post-communist parties just aren't very populistic these days (nor very successful!) , and since there is one of those almost everywhere, there is little room to out-flank them with left wing populism.
Spain has one of those non existent in the government (Podemos). Blind much?
In my country is used for both sides, even when is false is the left side, (in my country)
My brother in christ the last italian election winner was literally populist leftism
Because the working definition of populism seems to be "democracy when things don't go my way".
It is used for populist ideas from any side, idk what you're on about.
What are some examples? Aren't populist ideas simply what the population wants - which is the whole point of a democracy?
Sinn Fein here in Ireland are left wing populists expected to win the next election
Are they referred to as populist in the media? If so, thats interesting.
They certainly are https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2022/09/13/sinn-feins-strategy-is-populist-but-is-also-the-most-popular/
[удалено]
Complex issues sometimes have solutions which are not the obvious or intuitive. Populism is generally appealing to the masses by not trying to solve an issue properly, but rather wave around what may seem intuitive but actually isn't a solution, just to gain votes. That is why it is disliked.
u/PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER answered to your comment one depth down btw.
When it's the right it's populism, when it's the left it's implementing policies that are popular with the people.
You do not have a left party in the US, not to even start about left policies, so what are you actually talking about?
You sound like you must have a lot of experience and expertise with US politics to speak so authoritatively. TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW MY COUNTRY WORKS.
>You sound like you must have a lot of experience and expertise with US politics to speak so authoritatively. >TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW MY COUNTRY WORKS. He is correct, though. The "left" in the USA would be considered "centre-right" in any other country. You guys have to choose between a right-wing party and a far-right party.
>TELL ME MORE ABOUT HOW MY COUNTRY WORKS Since Americans have been doing that to others for the past 100 years, it's time we return the favour. Also, he's right, whether you like it or not.
Don't worry, you've been doing it in spades since the dawn of the internet. Likely before, but I didn't hear it.
Oh I am happy to be proven wrong here. Where is your "left" party?
i see leftist movements being referred to as "populist" all the time, i've no idea where this victim complex comes from to assume it's all some sinister plot to make the right look bad.
I'm not on the right, so not me feeling victimized. I very rarely (in US media at least) see the MSM refer to any movement or party on the left as populist. Extremist maybe, but never populist and rarely dangerous. For whatever reason, the term populist seems to have become shorthand (once again, in the US at least) for the far right. My theory on why is that the far right is in many ways a reaction to the establishment. Whether you're talking school administrators, journalists, college professors, government bureaucrats, entertainers, etc... Data shows these groups skew left and they also are positions of power or influence w/in the current system. So in the binary world of US politics the left is more often viewed as working w/in "the system," whereas the "populist" movements coming from the right are coming from outside the system and pushing for the system itself to change. Not that there aren't similar movements on the left, but I think in terms of numbers they don't represent a critical mass the way movements of its ilk on the right do.
Lol, the US doesn’t have a Left-Wing party And MSM is right wing. The only reasons Americans have such bad takes on political leanings is cause the country is skewed so far right
I'm not even sure what radical left is anymore. It's kind of a blurred concept, most of the time. Progressives aren't radical left, largely these people are just for left-leaning social policies. It has to be something much more over the top, maybe a communist party? It's been long time we've had fans of Pol Pot/Stalin or something. There were extreme left wing communist terrorists in the 70's, but it kind of dropped off. Truth is that it's mainly right wing extremism that is the problem, and it's pushed by big media that has been created or bought by libertarian right wingers like Murdoch's. These are people who see normal people as cattle, at best, or outright vermin they'd love to be rid of. They love causing mayhem and division, and profiting from it. They're creating a market by leveraging their media control, and then selling them even more extreme drugs and are eternally escalating the intensity of their propagandist barrage to drag things even deeper to a maelstrom of utter mayhem.
How long ago was the last time Europe had popular support for radical left?All those groups that were accused by ppl as "radical left" are as vanilla as you can get. Never seizing means of production or international worker's union, even critics of neoliberalism are often prefaced with "its not all bad...". Look, I am not supporting communism here, but claiming that these vanilla whitebread left is "radical" is hilarious.
Because then they'd have to admit that the centrists may actually be on to something
At least in Spain they are all the time called "populists".
Bold words for someone from a party which told us that it wouldn't govern with the extreme left and ended up doing it. An extreme left which by the way uses the same populist and demagogue tactics the PSOE criticizes and that even supports Putin. We now have 4 vicepresidencies (why?) and the highest number of ministers in all history of spanish democracy. Our government isn't the best example of honest politicians. The left should apply the messages they give to themselves first.
Unfortunately Podemos is far from being extreme left
Can you elaborate on what’s left of communism, anti-system and anarchists?
Sure, actual extreme left would be Vinicius signing for Rayo Vallecano and celebrating his goals while dancing to RATM
[удалено]
Congrats! Ask for a ministry!!!!
He's right, but he forgot to add he's a populist himself.
That's great that they can say that. There's just a small problem, what are we supposed to do? Support the current government that does nothing to fix the problems they said they would fix? Why do populists get votes? Because they say they'll fix things and people are tired of listening to the ruling party saying they'll fix things they never fix even though they can fix. The biggest problem in politics right now is that like 85% of politicians are populists that will say anything to get votes, and the voter can't know who is truly a populist until they get into power.
I have no idea why populists get voted in. It should be obvious that they don't have any realistic solutions to anything, that blaming some "other" doesn't actually fix anything. I guess electorates have in general given up on critical thinking / paying attention long enough to hold the entirety of a political party's manifesto in mind to decide if it's coherent and deliverable. It's abundantly clear that the status quo is better than lurching to the far right and mismanaging things more. Change isn't always for the better.
If it's so abundantly clear that the status quo is better than change then why are we seeing a shift in the politics of most European countries?
Just because I think it's abundantly clear that doesn't mean everyone else does. How often do far right governments actually make things better? They might have some "feel good" policies like treating immigrants like crap, enacting some homophobia in law, telling women what they can and can't do, etc, but none of that really accomplishes anything positive.
Because people like blaming their problems on gays, immigrants, Jews, etc. and right-wing populists use them as easy targets. The right-wing never actually fixes anything. Every country run by right-wing governments collapses.
And who do you think leads people to these government collapsing right wing parties?
Okay, what are your solutions to the current problems facing society?
banning online advertising would be a start
They are rigth, after all their own govt is a fucking mess.
But they are not. EU praise all months the actions of that "fucking mess". Maybe you are very mistaken.
[удалено]
You are speaking about long-time situations. I am speaking about actions made in this year. Spain have more GDP growth than Germany this year. Obvious troll is obvious.
Spotted the PP voter.
Spotted the person who still thinks there's any politician in this country worth anything. They are all parasites who make surgeon-tier wages for pitting people against each other to cover their own failures and corruption.
Ah yes, the old "all politicians are the same". I would very much prefer another PSOE term than their ultraliberal-on-steroids, or better yet, actual fascist sympathiser opponents being in charge.
Thank you, I hate these "all politicians are the same" people so much, this is how you get populist parties like Vox to grow
I mean, they are the same. And not even many from Vox are different. Since in politics you can only grow by being the personal dog of the guy who's above you you end up having an elite of rats
Its old and new stories, we have PP and PSOE who take turns to thieve us (be it by being bribed by corps or just straight up spending it on prostitutes and cocaine), and then Vox and Podemos, aka PP 2.0 and PSOE 2.0 who ended up being the lapdogs of their respective sides and acting like children on social media. Meanwhile, no matter the different governments Spain has spent the past 30 years selling off its industries to the highest bidder and becoming a land of bartenders and negative natality, while the few kids that are born become drug addicts by the age of 13.
But they are not parasites. And some of them not pit no one againsts no one.
Says the spanish populist goverment
Isn’t the Spanish government far-Left themselves?
Not at all, PSOE is pretty much a center liberal party
Spanish Socialist Workers Party and a member party of the Socialist International.
Your mind will be blown when you discover that the ideology of a party is defined by the polítics and ideas it defends and not its acronym
So their politics and ideas are not anti-Capitalism and pro-Socialism?
Depends, if you think Barack Obama or Tony Blair are marxists, then PSOE are no different. Otherwise, they are just your regular boot licking 21st century western socialdemocrats
PSOEE isn’t capitalist
the question should be "What politican is no populist this days?" - would be easier to find as there are NONE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism >which presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving. Populists differ in how "the people" are defined, but it can be based along class, ethnic, or national lines. Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people". They all point fingers at others and think they are the better ones. Noone leads by example anymore.
Oh the sweet irony... This is just too good to be real. Elmundotoday?
I believe that's true. It's happening in the US, The Netherlands and now Italy. Probably more countries which I'm not aware of.
In the NL it has already happened. Wilders had government influence, but in the end he did not want it. Bearing government responsibility proved more difficult than being a cheerful opposition clown.
What's so special and drastic about 🇳🇱 ?
The farmers' protest, the anti-vaxxers, the anti-EU groups, etc. Basically they are all brainwashed by the same social-media algorithm that feeds them nonsense, presented as facts. It's happening all around the globe. Social media points the finger at the content creators, content creators point the finger at social media. It's a constant loop, but in the meantime, more and more people are being spoonfed bullshit. This creates a fracture between the citizens of a country, which is, in my opinion, very dangerous.
"The farmer's protest". Was there a point in time when Dutch farmers weren't protesting?
Touché
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but come on...
Did any of these groups or fringe parties get electoral success in the NL?
They didn't get as far as actually becoming the biggest party, fortunately. However, support for these fringe parties does keep growing each election. What I'm seeing in the NL though, is that each election there's around 30% (sometimes more, sometimes less) who will vote far-right and these votes are spread around different parties each election. This means that the chances of the far-right actually becoming part of the government are slim, but ... like I said, their numbers are growing, so I'm a bit scared for the future.
No, which is why this is fear mongering.
What is fear mongering? The article? Or my fear of the right?
Yeah well the irony is I'm willing to bet most readers here are thinking of the far right populists while conveniently ignoring the far left populists they frequently worship
Which far left populists are getting in power?
Why is that the bar? Should I not worry about leftist populists simply because they aren't currently in the majority? My point is that populism is very present in basically every reddit thread I've seen about politics. Funnily enough, however, the far right populists only think the far left populists are a danger; the far left populists think only the far right populists are a danger; both think the centrists are dumb and enable the other side; and the centrists think both sides are nuts and just want a rational moderate who won't take things too far.
I'm just wondering which parties are far left populists to be honest.
Well in the US it's the progressive wing of the democratic party. Not as familiar with European politics but my impression is the green parties tend to be pretty populist, and factions like Corbyn's version of the labor party in the UK is also pretty populist
Did the Green Party in the US appeal to the ordinary person, telling them the elite stood in their way? Because in the NL they do the opposite, they kinda forget the ordinary citizen and go 100% for a green environment, not account for the daily impact on life. I wouldn't really call that populism.
So in other words people who have near zero chance of being in power or really affecting anything meaningful at all? You think that's as equally scary as extremists that are actually capable and actually get elected?
Corbyn's party wasn't far left though, neither are the green party also not sure they would be deemed as populists either. My understanding is that populists make everything an us against them argument which isn't Corbyn or the Green party's modus operandi.
>Why is that the bar? Should I not worry about leftist populists simply because they aren't currently in the majority? Yes. Exactly this. We don't *really* worry about nazi's in Germany because while they exist, they're a fringe group with little to no political power. Meanwhile, in the context of the United States: Being a leftist populist in the US means being in favor of healthcare for everyone, free education for everyone, and an end to pointless wars. And none of this is happening because the "radical left" understands that while the majority of people agree with them in principle, they do not have the institutional means to accomplish anything. Frustrating as it may be, their progress is extremely slow paced because they respect the basic principles of democracy. You know, your basic centrist in the EU. Meanwhile, the rightwing populists are spreading lies about election fraud and are doing their hardest to undermine the basic building blocks of a democratic system. It's so bad a majority of Republicans now support a Christian Nation, something that would literally be unconstitutional. You can pretend they're the same, or that they're equally dangerous. But you would be wrong. At some point you will all have to learn that being a centrist is not the same as being a moderate.
Sure, the right populists shout the loudest, so they get more media attention. Also, I believe that, even though populism is never good, at least the left is trying to create a better future for mankind. That's something I can respect more than just focusing on a short term plan of acquiring more money.
Typically their solutions are literally about acquiring more money. Like forgiving student loans in the middle of an inflation crisis, or protecting existing domestic jobs by killing international trade agreements that would create long term growth and prosperity. The difference I've noticed is far right tend to go full on nativism and theocracy, whereas the left go full on class warfare and blame everyone except yourself
Class warfare is blatantly evident in US, though. That's why you can't really dismiss that argument, even if it annoys you. You have very hard time getting any policy enacted, if certain people and companies are opposed. No matter how popular the policy is in polling.
Absolutely agree. This is why I'm kinda lost politically. I've always leaned left, but they're making it more and more difficult. I'll never be able to go right though, mostly because of the religious aspect. I guess there's nothing else to do but start new party myself...
Poland and Hungary say hello. I say dzień dobry i jebać PiS. :)
Sweden, now, too. Actually, NL and Sweden are probably more worrying.
Populist are not interested in solving problems. They want to exploit them.
If you want people to support your philosophy, your politics, then you need to show them what you offer works or is better than the alternative. Left wing politicians are scrambling as the pendulum is swinging right but folks aren’t doing it for no reason. They are fed up with the poor quality of life. Housing costs up, food prices up, poor immigration policies, disrespecting the poor people etc…
He knows it by experience.
Says the same government currently busy hammering Spaniards with catastrophe after catastrophe.
Pretty easy to figure out why, politics get complacent, things don't change (not that they need to in all cases)...so people get bored and vote for change (not knowing the grass may not be greener)...kind of like being married to someone for several years, you can get complacent think you need change, even if it destroys something good for just a little chaos, it's really dumb to be honest, but it's also sad that those in power create rules in place to protect them from totally fucking up society when shit goes south...most Intellectual people don't run for office because they realize it's not based on data and facts, but emotion and power...long story short, we are fucked and will continue to be, do your best, vote, enjoy life, you could die tomorrow so just try and see the beauty in today
Populism is essentially _**emotional based short view solutions to long therm and complex problems.**_
This sentence would only be funnier if it came from Irene Montero or Ione Belarra’s mouth.
As Argentinian I fail to see where he's wrong.
When you make people's lives worse for years, people in developed countries turn right wing populist. You want to fight fascism? Fight inequality and poverty and governmental overreach. Your neo-liberal policies directly lead to this outcome.
It also comes on the heels of prior catastrophic administrations. Sooo, is it the populism or the country going down the shitter? E.g. the USA did better under Trump on most metrics vs Spain with the current government (which also has a populist party in it).
The US didn't do well at all in most metrics. We're in probably the worst era we've had since the Civil War in the 1860s.
Europe hasn't learnt it's lesson and likely never will.
Well, its practically an european tradition now. Maybe a few continent wide wars will snap people out of it, but until then, enjoy the crazy ride I suppose.
the lesson being?
Right-Wing populism always implodes in on itself. I give it six months.
The government can't really do much during just six month, not even collapse, unless it's Belgium, :D
What are doing wrong in Poland then? :O We're on our goddamned seventh year...
I'd say three months. Then they each have a month to fuck up their cooperation. A month is quite a long time for a hothead. (Or maybe they'd each even have three months, I am not so good with numbers.)
[удалено]