- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Populism vs. Democracy What Is the Difference??
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:32 am
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:32 am
Honest question.
I’m hearing the main stream media talking about how great Democracy is and how Democracy must be protected at all costs.
Then the same people on the same show talk about how dangerous Populism is and how Populism is a danger to Democracy.
They did not bother to define Populism just decry it as dangerous.
So I’m asking.
What is the difference between Democracy and Populism and why is Populism dangerous for America and how is Populism dangerous to Democracy.
Thanks to those who answer.
I’m hearing the main stream media talking about how great Democracy is and how Democracy must be protected at all costs.
Then the same people on the same show talk about how dangerous Populism is and how Populism is a danger to Democracy.
They did not bother to define Populism just decry it as dangerous.
So I’m asking.
What is the difference between Democracy and Populism and why is Populism dangerous for America and how is Populism dangerous to Democracy.
Thanks to those who answer.
10
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:40 am to bird35
Populism is a form of democracy where the elected members are actually representing the general publics interest instead of the ruling bureaucratic oligarchy once they get into office. This is dangerous since it affects the pockets of those stealing from the treasury.
This post was edited on 9/10/23 at 9:41 am
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:43 am to bird35
To me populism is more a stand alone cultural thing,
while democracy hitches it to political power.
In other words:
Populism influences leaders.
Democracy chooses leaders.
while democracy hitches it to political power.
In other words:
Populism influences leaders.
Democracy chooses leaders.
This post was edited on 9/10/23 at 10:07 am
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:52 am to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
Populism is a form of democracy where the elected members are actually representing the general publics interest instead of the ruling bureaucratic oligarchy once they get into office. This is dangerous since it affects the pockets of those stealing from the treasury.
I think this is true. It seems that 'Democracy' lets the populous pick their Leaders who then decide policy/law based on their own reasoning in association with other Leaders (Congress). While Populism demands that their chosen Leaders reflect the policy desires of said populous/constituency instead of going off their own.
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:54 am to RCDfan1950
Say the pledge to the flag....
We are a republic not a democracy!
We are a republic not a democracy!
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:54 am to bird35
Populism is a political movement where power seekers seek political support by demonizing other political/social groups.
Democracy is an ineffective form of government
Democracy is an ineffective form of government
Posted on 9/10/23 at 9:57 am to bird35
There’s something that’s a little (D)infferent with Democracy that I can’t quite put my finger on. It just feels (D)ifferent somehow.
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:02 am to bird35
Populism leads to homogenous smaller nation states which leads to happiness.
Democracy leads to mob rule and using political power to destroy those who disageee with you.
Democracy leads to mob rule and using political power to destroy those who disageee with you.
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:23 am to bird35
Hugo Chavez was a successful populist. Due to that he was able to transform Venezuela from a Democratic to a socialist model and he ruled by decree. He ran on the poor vs elite strategy.
Trump is an unsuccessful populist. He had sufficient support to get elected due to our electoral system, but did not have a popular mandate enabling him to take over the other branches of the government. He ran on the working class vs elite (deep state/swamp) strategy, which didn't resonate as well since a large portion of the population doesn't fall into this group.
The risk to democracy is generally when a populist is voted enough power they tend to consolidate power, often on the premise that it's required to be done to accomplish their mandate.
And like all people with power, they rarely want to give it back. Generally speaking countries tend to go to shite when this happens too. Because at the point you turned over the political power it's too late to take it back.
You don't really think Chavez was all that popular when their economy went to shite do you?
Trump is an unsuccessful populist. He had sufficient support to get elected due to our electoral system, but did not have a popular mandate enabling him to take over the other branches of the government. He ran on the working class vs elite (deep state/swamp) strategy, which didn't resonate as well since a large portion of the population doesn't fall into this group.
The risk to democracy is generally when a populist is voted enough power they tend to consolidate power, often on the premise that it's required to be done to accomplish their mandate.
And like all people with power, they rarely want to give it back. Generally speaking countries tend to go to shite when this happens too. Because at the point you turned over the political power it's too late to take it back.
You don't really think Chavez was all that popular when their economy went to shite do you?
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:29 am to tango029
Wait, you’re comparing Trump to Chavez?
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:33 am to tango029
quote:
Hugo Chavez
Has a lot in common with Joe Biden, namely, he liked to arrest his political opponents
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:34 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Wait, you’re comparing Trump to Chavez?
They're both populists. Are you so naive you think populism is associated to left or right wing?
If you like I can compare him to Orban, he's a right wing populist. Or Putin.
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:34 am to bird35
I’ve posted this before and will no doubt post it again: in this essay from 1992, Murray Rothbard argues that conservative populism — i.e. MAGAism — can be viewed as a natural ally against the Statist agenda.
Though it may seem at first contradictory for supporters of limited government to engage with populism since such movements often embrace the politics of big government, populist critiques of the failed agenda of the ruling elite and populist opposition to the pieties of this self-appointed ruling class offers an excellent opportunity for libertarians (or anyone else who supports the principles of limited government) to promote first principles in a pragmatic and relevant way.
Rothbard on Conservative Populism….
WHAT IS RIGHT-WING POPULISM?
The basic right-wing populist insight is that we live in a statist country and a statist world dominated by a ruling elite, consisting of a coalition of Big Government, Big Business, and various influential special interest groups. More specifically, the old America of individual liberty, private property, and minimal government has been replaced by a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society.
In short, we are ruled by an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar, except that this Throne is various big business groups, and the Altar is secular, statist intellectuals, although mixed in with the secularists is a judicious infusion of Social Gospel, mainstream Christians. The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule.
In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, “social scientists,” and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.
….Libertarians have long been puzzled about whom, about which groups, to reach out to. The simple answer: everyone, is not enough, because to be relevant politically, we must concentrate strategically on those groups who are most oppressed and who also have the most social leverage.
Libertarians have often seen the problem plainly, but as strategists for social change they have badly missed the boat. In what we might call "the Hayek model," they have called for spreading correct ideas, and thereby converting the intellectual elites to liberty, beginning with top philosophers and then slowly trickling on down through the decades to converting journalists and other media opinion-molders. And of course, ideas are the key, and spreading correct doctrine is a necessary part of any libertarian strategy.
It might be said that the process takes too long, but a long-range strategy is important, and contrasts to the tragic futility of official conservatism which is interested only in the lesser-of-two-evils for the current election and therefore loses in the medium, let along the long, run. But the real error is not so much the emphasis on the long run, but on ignoring the fundamental fact that the problem is not just intellectual error. The problem is that the intellectual elites benefit from the current system; in a crucial sense, they are part of the ruling class. The process of Hayekian conversion assumes that everyone, or at least all intellectuals, is interested solely in the truth, and that economic self-interest never gets in the way.
Anyone at all acquainted with intellectuals or academics should be disabused of this notion, and fast. Any libertarian strategy must recognize that intellectuals and opinion-molders are part of the fundamental problem, not just because of error, but because their own self-interest is tied into the ruling system.
Why then did communism implode? Because in the end the system was working so badly that even the nomenklatura got fed up and threw in the towel. The Marxists have correctly pointed out that a social system collapses when the ruling class becomes demoralized and loses its will to power; manifest failure of the communist system brought about that demoralization. But doing nothing, or relying only on educating the elites in correct ideas, will mean that our own statist system will not end until our entire society, like that of the Soviet Union, has been reduced to rubble. Surely, we must not sit still for that. A strategy for liberty must be far more active and aggressive.
Hence the importance, for libertarians or for minimal government conservatives, of having a one-two punch in their armor: not simply of spreading correct ideas, but also of exposing the corrupt ruling elites and how they benefit from the existing system, more specifically how they are ripping us off. Ripping the mask off elites is "negative campaigning" at its finest and most fundamental.
This two-pronged strategy is (a) to build up a cadre of our own libertarians, minimal-government opinion-molders, based on correct ideas; and (b) to tap the masses directly, to short-circuit the dominant media and intellectual elites, to rouse the masses of people against the elites that are looting them, and confusing them, and oppressing them, both socially and economically. But this strategy must fuse the abstract and the concrete; it must not simply attack elites in the abstract, but must focus specifically on the existing statist system, on those who right now constitute the ruling classes…..
Though it may seem at first contradictory for supporters of limited government to engage with populism since such movements often embrace the politics of big government, populist critiques of the failed agenda of the ruling elite and populist opposition to the pieties of this self-appointed ruling class offers an excellent opportunity for libertarians (or anyone else who supports the principles of limited government) to promote first principles in a pragmatic and relevant way.
Rothbard on Conservative Populism….
WHAT IS RIGHT-WING POPULISM?
The basic right-wing populist insight is that we live in a statist country and a statist world dominated by a ruling elite, consisting of a coalition of Big Government, Big Business, and various influential special interest groups. More specifically, the old America of individual liberty, private property, and minimal government has been replaced by a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society.
In short, we are ruled by an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar, except that this Throne is various big business groups, and the Altar is secular, statist intellectuals, although mixed in with the secularists is a judicious infusion of Social Gospel, mainstream Christians. The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule.
In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, “social scientists,” and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.
….Libertarians have long been puzzled about whom, about which groups, to reach out to. The simple answer: everyone, is not enough, because to be relevant politically, we must concentrate strategically on those groups who are most oppressed and who also have the most social leverage.
Libertarians have often seen the problem plainly, but as strategists for social change they have badly missed the boat. In what we might call "the Hayek model," they have called for spreading correct ideas, and thereby converting the intellectual elites to liberty, beginning with top philosophers and then slowly trickling on down through the decades to converting journalists and other media opinion-molders. And of course, ideas are the key, and spreading correct doctrine is a necessary part of any libertarian strategy.
It might be said that the process takes too long, but a long-range strategy is important, and contrasts to the tragic futility of official conservatism which is interested only in the lesser-of-two-evils for the current election and therefore loses in the medium, let along the long, run. But the real error is not so much the emphasis on the long run, but on ignoring the fundamental fact that the problem is not just intellectual error. The problem is that the intellectual elites benefit from the current system; in a crucial sense, they are part of the ruling class. The process of Hayekian conversion assumes that everyone, or at least all intellectuals, is interested solely in the truth, and that economic self-interest never gets in the way.
Anyone at all acquainted with intellectuals or academics should be disabused of this notion, and fast. Any libertarian strategy must recognize that intellectuals and opinion-molders are part of the fundamental problem, not just because of error, but because their own self-interest is tied into the ruling system.
Why then did communism implode? Because in the end the system was working so badly that even the nomenklatura got fed up and threw in the towel. The Marxists have correctly pointed out that a social system collapses when the ruling class becomes demoralized and loses its will to power; manifest failure of the communist system brought about that demoralization. But doing nothing, or relying only on educating the elites in correct ideas, will mean that our own statist system will not end until our entire society, like that of the Soviet Union, has been reduced to rubble. Surely, we must not sit still for that. A strategy for liberty must be far more active and aggressive.
Hence the importance, for libertarians or for minimal government conservatives, of having a one-two punch in their armor: not simply of spreading correct ideas, but also of exposing the corrupt ruling elites and how they benefit from the existing system, more specifically how they are ripping us off. Ripping the mask off elites is "negative campaigning" at its finest and most fundamental.
This two-pronged strategy is (a) to build up a cadre of our own libertarians, minimal-government opinion-molders, based on correct ideas; and (b) to tap the masses directly, to short-circuit the dominant media and intellectual elites, to rouse the masses of people against the elites that are looting them, and confusing them, and oppressing them, both socially and economically. But this strategy must fuse the abstract and the concrete; it must not simply attack elites in the abstract, but must focus specifically on the existing statist system, on those who right now constitute the ruling classes…..
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:35 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Wait, you’re comparing Trump to Chavez?
He is saying populists can be on the right or on the left.
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:37 am to bird35
Populism is tied to promises of an increased standard of living (economic).
Democracy with a two party system at a national level is tied to mob rule.
Progressivism is tied to promises of an increased level of acceptance for left leaning ideology (social).
The above describes what the Biden regime professes to be.
In actuality, they are not populist, just progressive. As for being Democratic, that too is a lie, as his regime, like most in the past, is authoritarian.
Democracy with a two party system at a national level is tied to mob rule.
Progressivism is tied to promises of an increased level of acceptance for left leaning ideology (social).
The above describes what the Biden regime professes to be.
In actuality, they are not populist, just progressive. As for being Democratic, that too is a lie, as his regime, like most in the past, is authoritarian.
This post was edited on 9/10/23 at 10:59 am
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:40 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Populism is a political movement where power seekers seek political support by demonizing other political/social groups.
Like saying your opposition want genocide trans people? Or that they want to put kids in cages? Stuff like that?
This post was edited on 9/10/23 at 10:41 am
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:41 am to frogtown
quote:
He is saying populists can be on the right or on the left.
Exactly. The reason the left thinks it’s a threat right now is because the current edition of populism is at odds with their goals, but the current edition may not be tomorrow’s edition of populism. Hell, the BLM movement was “populist” and the left loved it.
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:49 am to tango029
quote:
The risk to democracy is generally when a populist is voted enough power they tend to consolidate power, often on the premise that it's required to be done to accomplish their mandate.
You mean like Obama campaigning to end the Iraq War and then instead inexplicably expanding the War On Terror® while claiming he had a “mandate” to further socialize our nation’s healthcare system?
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:52 am to bird35
I think populism is what got Julius Caeser killed.
He was a populist. Look who killed him.
He was a populist. Look who killed him.
Posted on 9/10/23 at 10:58 am to frogtown
quote:
He is saying populists can be on the right or on the left.
Some degree of populist pushback is the best outcome we can expect in our nation’s wholly corrupted political system. It is what it is.
Opposition to the UniParty® agenda will thus necessarily arise from the Bernie Bro Left or the MAGA Right. Take your pick:
This post was edited on 9/10/23 at 10:59 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News