NationStates Jolt Archive

I know we have the liberal, conservative, and libertarian corners of the political spectrum, but do we have any populists (economically liberal, socially conservative) here? Just curious.

Oh my Buddha. *shivers* I hate that crowd.

They're called Republicans where I come from.

Republicans are conservative, not populist.

For us ignorant cave dwellers out here - definition please.

Republicans are conservative, not populist.
OMG, that would be sigworthy, if the irony were less obvious. I'll refuse the cheap shot and leave it to someone else.

Populist = opposite of libertarian. The term also encompasses the term authoritarian and statist. Populists tend to favor a great deal of government control over individual behavior and over the economy.

For us ignorant cave dwellers out here - definition please.

Populists are evil. They take the worst parts of the Republican and Democratic parties and make a platform out of it. They are pretty much the exact opposite of a Libertarian. You know, they act like a conservative when it comes to your personal life (i.e. big brother/religious right will tell you how to behave), but have the weak economic policy of liberals.

So populist=Stalinist, then?

So populist=Stalinist, then?

Pretty much.

Pretty much.
So populist = twunt then.

So populist=Stalinist, then?


Meh. Sort of, from a certain point of view, not really....

See, the central basis for populists is that the "aristocrats" or the "wealthy" abuse the rest of society, so it is very socialist in that it supports revolution against said "oppressive society". However, socialism/marxism gives the individual much more freedom over their own lives. Many modern populists have close ties to the religious right, so they are much more strict on their social agenda. The best example of a populist "government" would be in France during the revolution. I think the most modern example I can think of in the U.S. would be Ross Perot. He was still very close to the right socially, but was in favor of much more economic control by the government.

So populist=Stalinist, then?


not really, actually fascism is more the ultimate expression of populism, stalinism has elements of populism but its to top down in its imposition.

So populist=Stalinist, then?

Lemme think of someone....I don't know...maybe Andrew Jackson (former US president for those who don't know), as he was considered a "man of the people." Maybe that fits the definition.

Lemme think of someone....I don't know...maybe Andrew Jackson (former US president for those who don't know), as he was considered a "man of the people." Maybe that fits the definition.

i don't think american facists would have any problem considering old hickory as one of their intellectual forefathers... his final solutions for several vexing native american issues were right on target with their modern aims and goals.

not really, actually fascism is more the ultimate expression of populism, stalinism has elements of populism but its to top down in its imposition.

Fascists usually get along well with populists, as their ideologies are close, but there is a subtle difference. Populists believe they are a "revolution" against the ruling class. (the fact that they, in fact, then become the ruling class isn't lost on them, they think that is the whole point!) Fascists don't necessarily believe in a revolution against a ruling class, they are more of a reaction against either communists or anarchists/libertarians, depending upon the country. But in most cases (like in Nazi Germany) the fascists and populists are in bed together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

Populists are evil. They take the worst parts of the Republican and Democratic parties and make a platform out of it. They are pretty much the exact opposite of a Libertarian. You know, they act like a conservative when it comes to your personal life (i.e. big brother/religious right will tell you how to behave), but have the weak economic policy of liberals.
I don't think I'm alone in saying that I think that was sad just because you had to point that out.

Lemme think of someone....I don't know...maybe Andrew Jackson (former US president for those who don't know), as he was considered a "man of the people." Maybe that fits the definition.

Well, now that you mention it, Jackson did have a populist streak. Just being a "man of the people" doesn't make one a populist. But subscribing to that "us vs. them" ideology is a step closer. That business with the Trail of Tears certainly fits. You see, the "people" were all afraid of the American Indians, so Jackson was enforcing the will of the "people" by forcing the Cherokee on a death march, even though "the man" (the 'evil' rulers in the supreme court, and those who didn't want to arbitrarily exterminate a nation of people) didn't want him to, and didn't think it was right of the government to do so.

Notice, however, that populist thought differs greatly from the 70's notion of being against "the man". The "hippie populists" may oppose the institution, but rather than imposing their own will on everyone, they subscribe to a liberal social policy i.e. equality for all, freedom to do what you want, and so on.

edit: my spelling sucks

I don't think I'm alone in saying that I think that was sad just because you had to point that out.

Which part? Or just the fact that someone had to ask; or that they didn't just look it up on wiki or something?

Based on a lot of your definitions I lean populist, though I usually view Populists as totalitarian. I'm certainly not totalitarian. The main things I am socially conservative on is abortion and affirmative action (I'm a big supporter of other equal rights legislation, I just feel affirmative action is a little over the top). I am socially conservative and economically liberal. I'm not sure I'm the exact opposite, but I like to think of myself as the exact opposite of libertarians. Either I'm being dense and not getting something or libertarians don't have a grain of common sense even though many of them are otherwise intelligent. I was just debating someone who thought their should be no environmental regulations and instead thought the solution was private ownership of all land, and that there should be ownership of air as well.

Oh I also like to point out that while I lean populist in some ways. I don't buy in to the whole us against them thing that is so ingrained in a lot of populist movements. It seems that populist movements often find a scapegoat. Someone to blaim for socieites problems. That's not something I will stand for.

But unlike libertarians, those cold heartless social darwinists, I believe in standing up for the little man. I realize that liberal economic policy is weaker as a whole, but is more beneficial for the little guy and that's what I want. Does Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and all of them really need more money? A strong economy is useless if the winnings aren't shared with us pions.

Erm... You sound more liberal, actually. Affirmative action and abortion are sticky topics on this side of the crossing fences as well, and if you're more lenient on other social policies... Well, you use a lot of my arguments, and I'd call you more liberal than anything else.

Common liberal social stances include: Equal rights for homosexuals, including marriage; keeping religion in general out of government and government organizations; tolerating other religions and cultures; reforming criminals rather than purely punishing them; no death pentalty; supporting scientific honesty- even when it's inconvenient for oil companies; and generally easing up on drug laws (if alcohol is legal, why shouldn't marijuana be legal?).

Completely agreed on libertarians. I actually question calling them socially liberal; to me, they seem to be more socially 'I don't care, lets just talk about evil taxes.'

Erm... You sound more liberal, actually. Affirmative action and abortion are sticky topics on this side of the crossing fences as well, and if you're more lenient on other social policies... Well, you use a lot of my arguments, and I'd call you more liberal than anything else.

Common liberal social stances include: Equal rights for homosexuals, including marriage; keeping religion in general out of government and government organizations; tolerating other religions and cultures; reforming criminals rather than purely punishing them; no death pentalty; supporting scientific honesty- even when it's inconvenient for oil companies; and generally easing up on drug laws (if alcohol is legal, why shouldn't marijuana be legal?).

Completely agreed on libertarians. I actually question calling them socially liberal; to me, they seem to be more socially 'I don't care, lets just talk about evil taxes.'

Good point. I'm not clear where the difference from economic policy and social stance falls because they are intertwined. I think the libertarians are claiming that welfare is an economic thing, since the programs seek to redistribute wealth and get the poor back on their feet to contribute to the economy. But it's just as much, if not more, a social policy since it is geared to help the less fortunate.

But you are right. I am liberal on most issues. But with our crappy political parties in the US I usually end up supporting the Republicans more (though I can't really say I'm a big fan of where the Republicans are going at the moment). The reason for this is that the abortion issue is very important to me. I really feel like it is morally equivalent to murder (I realize most people here dissagree, but you can argue that in one of the numerous abortion threads). Also while I have values that are traditionally liberal, I don't think the Democratic party does much to adress those things. They pretend to care about other people, but as soon as you talk about spending money to help suffering people in other nations the Democrates go "oh no, we can't do that, Americans are more important." I'm not sure where the populists stand on that. Can't think of any examples at the moment, but the Republican solutions to things usually make more sense to me, though they tend to completly ignore the issues I care most about. I feel that the Republican party historically is more pragmatic. And though the Democrates are more likely to focus on issues I care about, it bothers me that they are all about quick fixes.

We are going to fix years of inequality by allowing a select few middle class African Americans get into better colleges? Since when does affirmative action help the poorest black familes? Even if it did these people would be seriously underqaulified and would most likely fail. Not because they are stupid, but simply because they don't have the same footing that those of us who are better off have. It troubles me that I hear entire speaches from Democrates on inequality but its all about fighting the Republicans or beefing up affirmitive action. You can't talk about inequality without talking about our horrible innercity public schools. You can't deal with inequality without dealing with our horrible innercity schools. Why not reach out to these people and put them on equal footing with the rest of us, instead of trying to balance the books after the fact. Neither party wants to deal with this issue (and this is just one of many issues that bother me).

All of this being said I really can't stand either party. I just often end up supporting the Republicans mostly because of abortion and some of their ideas on how government should be run (strict constructionism, etc).

OMG, that would be sigworthy, if the irony were less obvious. I'll refuse the cheap shot and leave it to someone else.
*sits back laughing like Eichen until someone realizes what we're talking about*

I'm a Libertarian Populist. :p

I know we have the liberal, conservative, and libertarian corners of the political spectrum, but do we have any populists (economically liberal, socially conservative) here? Just curious.
Why are populists called populists? Why should people who appeal to the "oppressed underclass" be socially conservative?

Gyar! If I hear one more person equate "economic liberalism" with "socialism" I'm going to punch myself in the face!*

They are opposites, people!


*Because on the internet I am unable to punch them in the face.

Why are populists called populists? Why should people who appeal to the "oppressed underclass" be socially conservative?
Because populists normaly act as if politics is a popularity contest. So much so that they have no problem making contraditory decision upon contradictory decision...

A lovely real-life example is when populists grab popular attention because a population have immigrant problems. Instead of actually doing something to solve the problems, populists will advocate stopping all imigration. Of course, this usually makes matters even worse, because the immigrants already in the country will start feeling like a bloody plague.

Populists - policies, as a drunken 3 year old retarded nazi would formulate them. Or as an easily manipylated public would.

Populists are easy to recognize: they jsut say what everyone wants to hear, so they are greatly popular. Hitler was undoubdetly a populist and look what he did.
so beware.....
;)

Why are populists called populists? Why should people who appeal to the "oppressed underclass" be socially conservative?

Because oppressed underclass tend to be more socially conservative. For example, rural folk, from my personal experience, tend to be more socially conservative. They don't want homosexuals living with them, are against abortion, etc. Rural folk also tend to vote more for conservative candidates than liberal candidates, though they'd like more money from the government and if a populist party were strong they'd be more likely to vote for the populists. Many blue-collar workers can also be socially conservative, as well.

Populists are easy to recognize: they jsut say what everyone wants to hear, so they are greatly popular. Hitler was undoubdetly a populist and look what he did.
so beware.....
;)
Funny thing is, each time I spot a populist party somewhere & check out what they're all about, that guy instantly springs to mind.

In other news today, Evil Little Gits & TSw pulled a Goodwin :p

not really, actually fascism is more the ultimate expression of populism, stalinism has elements of populism but its to top down in its imposition.

Thats a bit off, too, because facism generally has a strong capitalist base (and populists hate those Fat Cats).

93
93/93

[QUOTE=AllCoolNamesAreTakenNotice, however, that populist thought differs greatly from the 70's notion of being against "the man". The "hippie populists" may oppose the institution, but rather than imposing their own will on everyone, they subscribe to a liberal social policy i.e. equality for all, freedom to do what you want, and so on.[/QUOTE]


Alot of modern American libertarianism stems from those hippie populists growing up, working, and applying they're lasisez faire social opinions to economic issues.

93
93/93

Completely agreed on libertarians. I actually question calling them socially liberal; to me, they seem to be more socially 'I don't care, lets just talk about evil taxes.'

Some of us evil libs are concerned only with fiscal issues, others are more concerned with socially libertarian issues (not quite the same as socially liberal issues. The core of any real libertarian philosophy, however, is that an individual can always choose for himself better than a government. Libertarians are about personal freedom, hell, we worship at the alter of individual liberty. The idea of limiting freedom is reflexively repulsive to us, it is anathema. Personally, I'm more of a traditional western libertarian, I just want to be left alone.

93
93/93

Why are populists called populists? Why should people who appeal to the "oppressed underclass" be socially conservative?

Beacuse, "THEY took our JARRRRRRRRRBS!" is the rallying cry of the populist. Turn on CNN when Lou Dobbs is on sometimes and you'll get a good idea. Populists embody all that is wrong with the working class mentality. No one works hard but us. We don't get paid what were worth. Those mexicans are stealing our jarbs. Why would you want to kiss another guy, there outta be a law.
Populists differ from traditional liberals in that they do not only appeal to the "underclasses" but because they appeal in an adversarial and oftentimes highly traditional way. Socially, they are conservative, they believe that others should conform to traditional social roles, they believe that families need to be protected. Economicly they are liberal because they are just as greedy as the foremen they hate so much, they just don't realize that an unskilled laborer's time isn't worth nearly as much as an inventor's.

93
93/93