[furrypurpledinosaur]

[mb edit: moved to socialism]

Often these days words "populism" or "populist" have negative connotation. In political debates, candidates will often attack their political opponents for being populist.

But aren't the populists actually the real democrats? Populism means respecting the power of a ballot box (referendums) and following the will of ordinary people and the middle class.

Are populists the real democrats?

Does the word populist have a positive or a negative connotation for you?

[Hamster]

I've often thought this. When I hear people in the political class decry others for "populism", it strikes me as a fear of the genuine will of the people. There's such a "we know what's best for you" undertone to it.

[Rei Murasame]

I've wondered about this as well. I don't really know what meaning the word 'populist' used to have, but when people say it now it usually carries an acidic tone to it as though the word means, "evil venomous demagogues who are inciting people to light all your plush toys on fire and spill wine on your pillows".

But actually in a lot of cases it simply means showing solitary with public sentiments on popular issues.

[furrypurpledinosaur]

Yeah. It is frustrating when a politician in TV says something most people think and he is then called a populist and attacked by media as some crazy demagog.

[The Immortal Goon]

This is also true of the word "liberal" and they're trying to make it true of "progressive."

It's basic Newspeak, really. I'm not a liberal or a progressive (in any real ideological sense) but people that are liberals (almost everyone in the west) try to run away from the label.

[Donna]

There's a huge difference between the will of the people and democracy. Authentic democracy that is observable today might as well mean "rule engineered by a democratic-minded minority". For example, the U.S. has often passed democratic laws that were (at least initially) met with popular resistance. Courts often impose democracy when it is majority opposed (so called 'judicial activism'). "Direct democracy" is dangerous and unstable because no geographically-defined human population on Earth is democratically-conscious, as a majority, under a capitalist system. Even the Old Left of North America would have devolved into despotism if its agitators and organizers somehow managed to grab up state power in a "direct" moment.

[cathartic moment]

The problem is that the public doesn't properly think things through.

If you poll a person in the street with a series of questions, and ask them to make up their mind quickly, then you will get one set of answers. If you then allow that person a week to research a topic, to talk with other people about it, to understand different opinions, and debate their ideas, you will get a completely different set of results.

Wouldn't the second set of ideas, the well considered ideas, be likely to be superior to the first set that were produced "off the cuff"?

The problem with populism is that it primarily revolves around the first, ill considered, set of ideas.

To take a simple example, consider the following 3 statements:

The government should support people with good public services.
The government should keep taxes low.
The government should run a balanced budget.

I'm pretty sure that if any of these statements were polled in my country (Britain) then far more people would select "Agree" than "Disagree". But no public policy can be constructed that supports all 3. When reality is introduced, all any government can hope to deliver is at most two of these statements.

That's a big part of the problem that populism has caused in both Britain and America. Politicians making promises, and talking about benefits, without talking about the corresponding costs. That's why our countries are facing economic crisis.

[Rich]

There's a huge difference between the will of the people and democracy.

Will of the people is an oxymoron. The people don't have a will. There is a collection of wills, but that is something quite different. Politics always consists of manipulation, ignorance and deceit. Most individuals don't have any kind of coherent opinions on socio economic, administrative and legal matters, so all this talk of real democracy is just nonsense, a cover for delegitemising any government that doesn't accord with ones political outlook.

[Donna]

Rich, you must have misunderstood my post. Democracy isn't simply deducible to the 'will' of the majority (and that itself may just as well be described un-democratic). This is not what I base my concept of democracy around, which is, as you correctly assumed, informed by political ideology. In that sense, it is imperative to be partial to the delegitimization of those politics which "doesn't accord".

[Julian]

Populists tend to generate public pressure for a set of political promises that may not deliver what the public actually want.

We all want "more policemen on the beat" but do we all know for sure that police are best taken away from other duties to patrol the streets. Might they not be following up investigations into serious crime and be distracted as a result. I don't know but it is a common refrain from politicians who just want an easy soundbite and don't really care about the consequences. Shouldn't democracy be about considered discussion and debate.

Populists might also stretch the truth. The British public may be prepared to support a war if the enemy has chemical weapons but is that the truth or is a populist politician playing politics. Isn't democracy supposed to be about informed consent

Finally populists may decide for example that travellers, single mothers or the mentally ill are an easy target for abuse - which may be popular with large numbers of people. But is it really part of our democracy to scapegoat minorities just because that has more votes in it than against. Isn't democracy partly about tolerance. About everyone contributing rather than a tryanny of the few.

[USB]

The fact tha socialists are populists and the fact that Obama is a socialist, it can be said that Obama is a real Democrat. I am surprised by the level of tolerance that my fellow-black American shows. He can overcome any scandal sponsored by the Conservatives that come across his way. He does not appear irked or has never been affected by the slanderous invectives of Cheney and McCain. He is a 'smooth operator'! Indeed a smooth one!! Mi amigo (My friend, Barack)...

[The Immortal Goon]

The fact tha socialists are populists and the fact that Obama is a socialist, it can be said that Obama is a real Democrat.

Almost nothing in this sentence is a fact.

[Negotiator]

A populist is someone who says things he doesnt believe himself, just so people agree with him.

That isnt democratic at all.

Most importantly, if you put the populist in power, he will not do what he promised, because he never believed it in the first place.

A very common example for this are conservatives who complain about state debt. In many countries, you put them into power and they will raise state debt faster than their political opponents did before. For very often it turns out they might indeed hate state debt, but certainly love much more to lower taxes for the rich, instead of lowering state debt. Therefore their argument is populistic.

Thus, if a state has nothing but populists as politicans, the end result is that democracy turns into a mockery. The general public has no way any more to decide about politics at all, because in the end people need to trust the people they vote for will do what they say they will do.

It's basic Newspeak, really. I'm not a liberal or a progressive (in any real ideological sense) but people that are liberals (almost everyone in the west) try to run away from the label.

Sorry, but thats a symptom I only know from the USA, not "the west".

Here in europe, people instead try to prove that other people arent liberal.

The problem is that the public doesn't properly think things through.

If you poll a person in the street with a series of questions, and ask them to make up their mind quickly, then you will get one set of answers. If you then allow that person a week to research a topic, to talk with other people about it, to understand different opinions, and debate their ideas, you will get a completely different set of results.

Wouldn't the second set of ideas, the well considered ideas, be likely to be superior to the first set that were produced "off the cuff"?

The problem with populism is that it primarily revolves around the first, ill considered, set of ideas.

To take a simple example, consider the following 3 statements:

The government should support people with good public services.
The government should keep taxes low.
The government should run a balanced budget.

I'm pretty sure that if any of these statements were polled in my country (Britain) then far more people would select "Agree" than "Disagree". But no public policy can be constructed that supports all 3. When reality is introduced, all any government can hope to deliver is at most two of these statements.

That's a big part of the problem that populism has caused in both Britain and America. Politicians making promises, and talking about benefits, without talking about the corresponding costs. That's why our countries are facing economic crisis.

I like your post, but the statement "The government should keep taxes low." is dead wrong.

The right statement, that I would agree with, would be "The government should keep taxes on the right level". For the service the community provides. For example, if they make all public travel (train, bus etc) free, I dont oppose higher taxes in return.