NationStates Jolt Archive

(from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/))

Populist:
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a U.S. political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies
2 : a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people

That may not clarify things, but I'll explain, throughout the essay what Populism is, and how I perceive it as a distinct ideology.

For a while now, I really haven't understood my ideology. I could be described as a more Conservative Democrat, a more rational Libertarian, a Socialist, or many other things, but none of them seemed to fit, until now... Populism.

I'm a strong fan of Jean-Jacque Rousseau, who my political science professor says was "the first radical Democrat." I've been reading Rousseau's The Social Contract and I truly agree with it a lot... It's as if Rousseau is a mirror-image of my political stance.

Because I'm Classically Liberal, in the sense that I believe that ethics are determined through reason and culture, no moral values should ever be unquestionable, freewill is never a cause to be considered, and that the sole function of the government should be to protect liberty and promote equality for the opportunistic. Thus, I oppose things such as prayer in schools and faith-based initiatives, and I support social programs and universal healthcare. I'm Conservative, in the sense that I see that modern Liberalism has been greatly tainted by Marxism, I accept some traditional values as being true because of reason, and I recognize that mainstream economists confirm that conservative economics are true. And so, I oppose things such as unrestricted abortion and gun control, and support such things as free trade and privatized education.

Now, obviously, this is a very original and unique view and, if it weren't for the fact that Christian Evangelicals and Neoconservatives dominate the Republican Party, I might even vote Republican. (For example, I like John McCain, but I like John Kerry even more.)

But there is a core aspect that drives my beliefs: I recognize that both Liberals and Conservatives tend to be morons. I don't simply say that, either, but I truly mean it. I'm planning on writing critiques of all the main ideologies soon, to explain how each has fundamental flaws. But more than that, I support direct democracy and believe that the common man would be able to govern even better than with representatives... And I believe in the paradox, "The intelligentsia is stupid."

I very much believe that the average human beings are, throughout all places and times, oppressed by the elite. This is class-conflict and is similar to Marx's proletariat and bourgoisie, however, I don't believe this "elite" must necessarily be founded on wealth (though it usually is). The political elite of the Soviet Union wasn't founded on wealth, nor is the political elite of the Chinese government today.

What we fail to realize in America and Britain is that we aren't truly living in democracies, in free countries. Certainly, our governments are more rational and civilized, but they are still merely corrupt aristocracies. This is also clearly evident when, in both countries, you end up with "Ruling Families," such as in America, the Bush family and the Kennedy family. When you have entire families that hold political weight, it is frankly obvious that we are not a Democratic Republic, but an Aristocratic Republic... And even Liberals are part of this elite.

I am planning to write more on direct democracy soon, but Rousseau made an excellent point: undemocratic governments can promote neither morality nor duty, because neither duty nor morality can come about through force. Direct Democracy is the kind of democracy that reduces force the least. Therefore, truly, only through direct democracy can this be done most efficiently.

In modern society, we claim to believe we have a social contract, but we do not. But rather, we have "the social extortion." The government does not make an offer to give me liberty in exchange for me giving up some of my liberties... The government forces me to give up my liberties, makes me pay to give up my liberties (taxes), and then, being the slave that I am, my only means of reversing the situation is by suggesting a master to preside over me and the other slaves, and hoping that the majority of the other slaves agree. I'm not sure about what the traditional definition of democracy is, but to me, that is certainly not what I'd call a "free" country.

I've watched quite a lot of C-Span and I have to say that I am unimpressed. Our politicians, despite their Master's Degrees and Ph. D's are still just as idiotic as the average man, if not more idiotic. Why, then, should they be given the exclusive right to govern? They shouldn't.

So, what is Populism? It is the belief that there is and always has been an elite ruling class that oppresses the people. It doesn't need to be based on wealth, as it deals with merely power (which can come through ways other than money). And it is the duty of the common people, both Conservative and Liberal, to rise up in revolution against that elite and establish Direct Democracy, with laws that are not based on merely pseudointellectual rhetoric, but most of all, on common sense.

Now, there have been many racists, such as Adolf Hitler, who have been labeled Populists... And it's true that they put forth images of themselves as identify with "the common man," but this is an attempt that ALL politicians put forth, in one way or another, to gain greater votes. It was just more apparent with Hitler and others. They also don't support Populism, but rather they merely put forth the illusion of it. Hitler ignored the fact that Jews were part of "the common people," as well, therefore, he, and other racists, certainly could not truly be labeled a Populist. Because Nationalism and Populism are mutually exclusive. Populism rejects ALL elites, not believing only one racial elite should be taken down, or that other racial elites should be made more powerful.

Do you have any idea the freedoms direct democracy could restrict?

I wasn't sure if I was Populist, but I guess I'm not.

One harsh omen I see is your disillusion with those running for office and those in power. I think that if we were to have a sound, operating Populist Party in the United States, you might find yourself shocked by its politicians' idiocy as well.

Nope, I'm not a Populist.

But good luck with that!

Do you have any idea the freedoms direct democracy could restrict?
The freedoms that people felt needed restricting. It's silly to assume that, with greater power, they wouldn't give up certain freedoms because we give up certain freedoms now. As do politicians. And it doesn't take a college education or a six-figure salary to recognize that liberties must sometimes be given up... The idea that liberties must sometimes be given up is simply a sense of maturity, and is not something that requires a vast, expensive education to learn. Even a child knows, "I must obey my parents, or else I won't survive."

And, being that it's a sense of maturity, it isn't something that could even be gained through education or wealth, but rather, only through experience. In other words, it is beyond intelligence and knowledge: It is wisdom.

The freedoms that people felt needed restricting. It's silly to assume that, with greater power, they wouldn't give up certain freedoms because we give up certain freedoms now. As do politicians. And it doesn't take a college education or a six-figure salary to recognize that liberties must sometimes be given up... The idea that liberties must sometimes be given up is simply a sense of maturity, and is not something that requires a vast, expensive education to learn. Even a child knows, "I must obey my parents, or else I won't survive."

And, being that it's a sense of maturity, it isn't something that could even be gained through education or wealth, but rather, only through experience. In other words, it is beyond intelligence and knowledge: It is wisdom.
The risk is that the majority could restrict the freedoms of the minority or any other that they see as needing restriction, but there is always a risk. Demcoarcy killed Socrates. (I can't remember who said that.)

Free Silver! Free Silver!

Everyman a Millionaire!!

What we fail to realize in America and Britain is that we aren't truly living in democracies, in free countries. Certainly, our governments are more rational and civilized, but they are still merely corrupt aristocracies. This is also clearly evident when, in both countries, you end up with "Ruling Families," such as in America, the Bush family and the Kennedy family. When you have entire families that hold political weight, it is frankly obvious that we are not a Democratic Republic, but an Aristocratic Republic... And even Liberals are part of this elite.

When you factor in state and local governments as well as every member of the federal government that is not George W. Bush you find that his aristocratic power is extremely marginal, if not non-existant.

I am planning to write more on direct democracy soon, but Rousseau made an excellent point: undemocratic governments can promote neither morality nor duty, because neither duty nor morality can come about through force. Direct Democracy is the kind of democracy that reduces force the least. Therefore, truly, only through direct democracy can this be done most efficiently.

I'd be interested in what you believe duty and morality are and why a government would undermine them at a steady rate (Or, perhaps, not so steady rate) as it became increasingly more authoritarian.

In modern society, we claim to believe we have a social contract, but we do not. But rather, we have "the social extortion." The government does not make an offer to give me liberty in exchange for me giving up some of my liberties...

Why, sure the government does. We have the Bill of Rights and everything it implies. The members of the goverment itself are protected by the Bill of Rights. Politicians are just as much citizens as we are and desire liberty just as much as the next guy. What rights do you feel that we do not have that we should? Remember, we theoretically need to give up some in order for a government to provide stability so that the police are there to save my ass when someone tries to kill me (for example).

The government [i]forces me to give up my liberties, makes me pay to give up my liberties (taxes), and then, being the slave that I am, my only means of reversing the situation is by suggesting a master to preside over me and the other slaves, and hoping that the majority of the other slaves agree. I'm not sure about what the traditional definition of democracy is, but to me, that is certainly not what I'd call a "free" country.

I'm not paying to give up my liberties. My liberties are already ensured by the Constitution. I pay taxes so that the government can maintain the services it offers me.

I think you're being overly dramatic when you refer to us slobs that aren't members of the government as slaves. Again, you need to tell us why we're slaves and what we require in order to be free me.

I've watched quite a lot of C-Span and I have to say that I am unimpressed. Our politicians, despite their Master's Degrees and Ph. D's are still just as idiotic as the average man, if not more idiotic. Why, then, should they be given the exclusive right to govern? They shouldn't.

They should be because I don't have time to cast a well informed vote on every piece of legislation that goes through my local, state, and federal government. I trust them to make as good of a decision as I would. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's nothing that can't be fixed by running for office myself.

I am not a populist and I do not support direct democracy.

Great people rise from society, and a direct democracy has no consideration for minority rights.

The risk is that the majority could restrict the freedoms of the minority or any other that they see as needing restriction, but there is always a risk.
First of all, your statement also rests on the assumption that a consistent majority can exist outside of representative democracy in a modern society, which is false. But rather, the majority rule is determined by people's ideas, not their identities as members of a certain group. There can never permanently be any "majority group," because as a general rule, minorities tend to be poor, and thus, have more children. Majorities tend to be wealthier and thus, have less children. So, once you've become a minority, the relative size of your group increases. Once you've become a majority, the relative size of your group decreases. This is just a general rule, though, as there are groups such as upperclass Christians and Jews which have many children, but this is a rarity. This is why in America and almost any country where there are several distinct groups (which a modern society always has), you cannot have one majority, but rather, there are simply distinct pluralities... Only in a a non-modern society or a Representative Democracy can you have majorities, as we always have in America.

In a Representative Democracy, minorities once again tend to be poor, and thus, they tend to vote less often... And politicians have no obligation to citizens that don't vote for them. Therefore, Representative Democracy does not represent minorities anymore than Direct Democracy.

Furthermore, your statement rests upon the assumption that majority rule is bad and not in representative democracy. Well, why then is it okay to have majority rule, year-after-year in America? Republicans have no greater amount of obligation to non-Republican constituents than any Republican constituent has! The contrary would also be true if we still had a Democrat majority. So, tyrrany by majority only exists in representative democracy, not direct democracy.

And finally, any majority that develops in direct democracy, while it may be self-interested, this is no different than the group of wealthy lawyers that govern us now. There is nothing about growing up in a rich family and going to law school that makes you care about people who you disagree with, and have little or no impact on your life.

Demcoarcy killed Socrates. (I can't remember who said that.)
That's false. Socrates was killed by poorly-implemented democracy. You have to remember: Athens was the FIRST democratic government ever implemented. They also failed because of the countless limitations they faced. Direct Democracy could also be mildly adjusted to account for the inherent flaws of human nature, but it wouldn't be permanently necessary.

Certainly, there would be problems with Direct Democracy, but eventually, they fix themselves. In Direct Democracy, if the government makes a wrong decision, everyone overall suffers. That incentive encourages them to make the right decision. Whereas, in Representative Democracy, the lives of individual politicians usually aren't severely affected overall by the legislation they pass. Sure, they must do well enough to keep their jobs, but in a Representative Democracy, incumbency develops naturally, so it's idiotically easy. In other words, in direct democracy, EVERYONE is affected by the laws passed and they have the incentive of improving their own quality of life. Whereas, in Representative Democracy, politicians usually aren't affected at all and their only incentive is to do the bare minimum, in order to keep their jobs.

When you factor in state and local governments as well as every member of the federal government that is not George W. Bush you find that his aristocratic power is extremely marginal, if not non-existant.
Yet these ruling families develop and statistically, we have a 99% incumbency rate, with politicians that hold office for decades, such as Strom Thurmond, a racist who served in Congress for half a century. And then, there's the example of Senator Robert Byrd. When there is a member of Congress who is an ex-KKK member (and a Democrat ;)), I think it's poignantly obvious that our system of election has miserably failed.

I'd be interested in what you believe duty and morality are and why a government would undermine them at a steady rate (Or, perhaps, not so steady rate) as it became increasingly more authoritarian.
Your screen-name is "Evil Arch Conservative." Do I need to answer that?

As Rousseau put it, we have natural inequalities. Some people are more intelligent, more ambitious, stronger, healthier, and have greater resources. These inequalities are not inherently immoral and it would be impossible to make us all completely equal. However, as societies grow, these natural inequalities manifest into conventional inequalities, such as bigotry, political oppression, extreme wealth and poverty, and war. The more that a governing body grows, the stronger that their conventional inequalities will be.

This is why "big government," is a very, very bad thing.

Why, sure the government does. We have the Bill of Rights and everything it implies. The members of the goverment itself are protected by the Bill of Rights. Politicians are just as much citizens as we are and desire liberty just as much as the next guy.
They do not 'desire' liberty, because they cannot want that which they are already holding the reins of.

Furthermore, if the government does make an 'offer' for the social contract, then how can I reject the social contract, if I wish? Moving is not a rejection of the social contract, because I am not merely rejecting the social contract, but am also forced to lose my property as a result of it.

In other words, the unwritten social contract in the United States: "Give up the liberties we tell you to and we will give you even more liberties in return. If you break this contract, you will have to give another citizen your property in return for adequate compensation and leave." And every citizen is forced to sign that contract.

If I were to say that I have decided that, on my land, I refuse to be a part of the United States and resisted police when they attempted to arrest my for tax evasion, I would be arrested, convicted of tax evasion, and possibly even convicted of treason.

Now... If the government has emminent domain over all property, the government tells me what I can and cannot do on my property, and if I refuse to abide by their laws, I must GIVE THEM my property, then how does any citizen ever truly have any property rights?! They don't.

What rights do you feel that we do not have that we should?
-A legitimate right to property
-A legitimate right to representation

Remember, we theoretically need to give up some in order for a government to provide stability so that the police are there to save my ass when someone tries to kill me (for example).
I'm advocating direct democracy, not anarchy. All laws inherently violate liberty, but that doesn't mean they're any less necessary. I'm criticizing the current democratic system and offering a better one, not saying that the government should not exist at all.

I'm not paying to give up my liberties. My liberties are already ensured by the Constitution. I pay taxes so that the government can maintain the services it offers me.
The preamble of the Constitution states that We the people do ordain and establish the Constitution, not bureaucrats on Capitol Hill. Your liberties are ensured by your actions and the fact that we live in a civilized society, not by a piece of paper and not by the government. Both Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein were elected democratically. In a direct democracy, a choice that horrible could be reversed. In their representative democracies, it could not.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,

I think you're being overly dramatic when you refer to us slobs that aren't members of the government as slaves. Again, you need to tell us why we're slaves and what we require in order to be free me.
It is simple. We are slaves because our liberty is at the will of someone else. What we require to be free is direct representation.

They should be because I don't have time to cast a well informed vote on every piece of legislation that goes through my local, state, and federal government. I trust them to make as good of a decision as I would. It doesn't always work out that way, but that's nothing that can't be fixed by running for office myself.
And they do an absolutely pathetic job. Did you know that Congressmen don't even read the overwhelming majority of legislation that they pass? How then am I supposed to be impressed with their ability to make informed decisions?!

All laws inherently violate liberty

only under self-contradictory ideas of liberty, or a definition of law that requires that some sort of elite makes the law.

Free Silver! Free Silver!

Everyman a Millionaire!!

but first, we have to take care of those damn freemasons!

only under self-contradictory ideas of liberty, or a definition of law that requires that some sort of elite makes the law.
I agree with the latter part of your statement, but could you elaborate on the first part of your statement, "self-contradictory ideas of liberty"?

That's false. Socrates was killed by poorly-implemented democracy. You have to remember: Athens was the FIRST democratic government ever implemented. They also failed because of the countless limitations they faced. Direct Democracy could also be mildly adjusted to account for the inherent flaws of human nature, but it wouldn't be permanently necessary.


Actually, Socrates was killed by disobeying direct democracy. All of the charges leveled against him were a mask of the real charge, namely teaching a tyrant. As crimes involving sides in that war were declared forgiven, Socrates had to be charged for something else.

I'm Conservative, in the sense that I see that modern Liberalism has been greatly tainted by Marxism, I accept some traditional values as being true because of [i]reason, and I recognize that mainstream economists confirm that conservative economics are true.

I just wanted to point out that just because the majority of economists currently support conservative economics dosen't mean they are true. After al one only has to look back a few decades and the majority of economisits thought that these ideas had been proven false, by the Great Depression. If you look back even farther you see those ideas existing in the fringes and diferent ones accepted by the majority. So the position of the majority changes in economics the same as in anything else, which is why one should be carefull about accepting anything just because it is the majority opinion.

Actually, Socrates was killed by disobeying direct democracy. All of the charges leveled against him were a mask of the real charge, namely teaching a tyrant. As crimes involving sides in that war were declared forgiven, Socrates had to be charged for something else.

i think i remember there being several of his students that wound up betraying athens.

also, socrates was a dick. more people voted to have him killed than found him guilty in the first place.

"what do you think your punishment should be?"
"i think you should give me free food so that i may live comfortably and never have to do anything. ok, maybe i'll pay a fine of 20 bucks."

I'm not a populist, as I think democracy is tyrannical. I'd call myself more of an anarcho-capitalist, in other words radical libertarian.

Actually, Socrates was killed by disobeying direct democracy. All of the charges leveled against him were a mask of the real charge, namely teaching a tyrant. As crimes involving sides in that war were declared forgiven, Socrates had to be charged for something else.
It wasn't universal direct democracy, but election by sortition. Furthermore, the average person was uneducated back then and they had almost no knowledge of psychology. Their society was unmodern and, by comparison, uncivilized. Furthermore, their supposed "direct democracy," did not even allow everyone to become part of the government (such as women or slaves).

That's why I say it wasn't direct democracy that killed Socrates, but direct democracy that was poorly implemented.

I just wanted to point out that just because the majority of economists currently support conservative economics dosen't mean they are true. After al one only has to look back a few decades and the majority of economisits thought that these ideas had been proven false, by the Great Depression. If you look back even farther you see those ideas existing in the fringes and diferent ones accepted by the majority. So the position of the majority changes in economics the same as in anything else, which is why one should be carefull about accepting anything just because it is the majority opinion.
Of course. No science is flawless. If you look back, at psychology... Take Freud and other psychoanalysts' theories, for example. They were totally whacked-out. But that doesn't mean that, today, psychology is a useless field, where we should not regard mainstream psychologists' opinions.

No, it certainly isn't flawless. It is flawed and open to change. But it is currently the widely-established closest thing to the truth, by those who know the most about it.