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?
So which is it, the solution or a danger?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Anyway, I'm glad the thread has been flagged.
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.
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.
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.