I appreciate AOC cleaving apart the false “both sides are the same” equivalence of the word “populism” here.
-
I appreciate AOC cleaving apart the false “both sides are the same” equivalence of the word “populism” here. https://mastodon.online/@mastodonmigration/116082081470440947
-
I appreciate AOC cleaving apart the false “both sides are the same” equivalence of the word “populism” here. https://mastodon.online/@mastodonmigration/116082081470440947
One of my pet peeves of recent years has been the mainstream press:
(1) adopting “populism” as a euphemism for fascism (e.g. “Trump’s populist rhetoric”), which is at best a blurring of the word’s actual meaning (yes, fascists can use populist language, but populism is not their defining feature), and then
(2) applying the word in its original meaning (i.e. mass appeal to ordinary people) to leftists in direct comparison to fascists as if this constitutes a useful insight (e.g. “politicians with a populist message, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders”).
-
One of my pet peeves of recent years has been the mainstream press:
(1) adopting “populism” as a euphemism for fascism (e.g. “Trump’s populist rhetoric”), which is at best a blurring of the word’s actual meaning (yes, fascists can use populist language, but populism is not their defining feature), and then
(2) applying the word in its original meaning (i.e. mass appeal to ordinary people) to leftists in direct comparison to fascists as if this constitutes a useful insight (e.g. “politicians with a populist message, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders”).
AOC’s reframing here cuts to the heart of it:
A politics that blames the most vulnerable people in society for society’s problem is diametrically opposed to a politics that blames the most powerful. Lumping these opposites together as both being “populism” is nonsense.
It is important, she says, to provide an explanation of the •causes• of society’s problems — both why and who — or the worst people will fill that explanatory vacuum.
-
One of my pet peeves of recent years has been the mainstream press:
(1) adopting “populism” as a euphemism for fascism (e.g. “Trump’s populist rhetoric”), which is at best a blurring of the word’s actual meaning (yes, fascists can use populist language, but populism is not their defining feature), and then
(2) applying the word in its original meaning (i.e. mass appeal to ordinary people) to leftists in direct comparison to fascists as if this constitutes a useful insight (e.g. “politicians with a populist message, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders”).
@inthehands In the “words mean things” camp, I am forced to point out that populism doesn’t just mean “popular” or “an appeal to the people”, but a specific kind of antiintellectualism that is often a tool of fascism.
-
@inthehands In the “words mean things” camp, I am forced to point out that populism doesn’t just mean “popular” or “an appeal to the people”, but a specific kind of antiintellectualism that is often a tool of fascism.
@criffer
The definitions I referred to composing this post:Oxford New American: “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups”
M-W: “a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people especially against the Establishment”
Wikipedia: “Populism is a contested concept[1][2] for a variety of political stances that emphasise the idea of the "common people", often in opposition to a perceived elite.[3] It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.[4] The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, often assuming a pejorative tone. Within political science and other social sciences, different definitions of populism have been employed.[3][5]”
Those definitions certainly include what you wrote, but are not limited to that. It sounds like you have a narrower understanding of the word that common consensus.
-
@criffer
The definitions I referred to composing this post:Oxford New American: “a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups”
M-W: “a political philosophy or movement that represents or is claimed to represent the interests of ordinary people especially against the Establishment”
Wikipedia: “Populism is a contested concept[1][2] for a variety of political stances that emphasise the idea of the "common people", often in opposition to a perceived elite.[3] It is frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.[4] The term developed in the late 19th century and has been applied to various politicians, parties, and movements since that time, often assuming a pejorative tone. Within political science and other social sciences, different definitions of populism have been employed.[3][5]”
Those definitions certainly include what you wrote, but are not limited to that. It sounds like you have a narrower understanding of the word that common consensus.
@inthehands Sadly, words lose semantic content over time, which was my point. So if populism is allowed to mean “popular” or “mass appeal”, then we lose the ability to talk about the specific concept.
-
One of my pet peeves of recent years has been the mainstream press:
(1) adopting “populism” as a euphemism for fascism (e.g. “Trump’s populist rhetoric”), which is at best a blurring of the word’s actual meaning (yes, fascists can use populist language, but populism is not their defining feature), and then
(2) applying the word in its original meaning (i.e. mass appeal to ordinary people) to leftists in direct comparison to fascists as if this constitutes a useful insight (e.g. “politicians with a populist message, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders”).
@inthehands@hachyderm.io and like, for what sake they do that?.. the opposite of populist is "elitist".
okay, being catty here. they usually deem themselves "technocrats" and "meritocrats". which isnt really better. Russia is "technocratic" too. Whole thing here to be proud of having trained external city-managers instead of local elected mayors. -
@inthehands Sadly, words lose semantic content over time, which was my point. So if populism is allowed to mean “popular” or “mass appeal”, then we lose the ability to talk about the specific concept.
@criffer @inthehands Now do "Conservative."
-
One of my pet peeves of recent years has been the mainstream press:
(1) adopting “populism” as a euphemism for fascism (e.g. “Trump’s populist rhetoric”), which is at best a blurring of the word’s actual meaning (yes, fascists can use populist language, but populism is not their defining feature), and then
(2) applying the word in its original meaning (i.e. mass appeal to ordinary people) to leftists in direct comparison to fascists as if this constitutes a useful insight (e.g. “politicians with a populist message, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders”).
The confusion of populist vs popularist? Or conflation of the two term?
-
R AodeRelay shared this topic
