Populism (and Dobbs) is the basis for "muh democracy" rants and ravings from the DEMs

First, I suggest everyone listen to Ezra Klein's podcast from November 1 on the rise of the populist right. ( Stitcher LINK). I haven't listened to one of his podcasts in probably 18-24 months, but this one was pretty good and fair, considering the topic and political climate.

One of the key takeaways is that perceived culture is the predominant rise in the populist right, and they started to actually gain political power once they adopted more leftist economic policies (see: Trump and union support for an easy American example of a population cohort switching parties but not really switching policies).

Dobbs is the backbone of this argument today for the Left. I know that it's a popular decision on here and as a judicial opinion I believe it's correct (Roe was a terrible decision with terrible justification made for a desired goal, which is an example of the worst kind of caselaw/precedents), but this board has to admit (1) Dobbs is not a popular decision nationally and (2) it's an example of regressive policy choices.

Current Pew data on abortion





What those 2 polls should tell you is that (1) abortion being legal is accepted as a preferred policy by more than a simple majority of the country and (2) abortion means a lot more to DEMs than Republicans, despite the beliefs on here that it's a conservative issue.

Now, how this ties into the "death of democracy" argument (which I don't believe in, despite the current polarized state of political discourse) is that it provides a tactile example of just that sort of regression that's being shouted about by the Left. There are also other examples of states who elected populist-right leaders who then faces similar regressions (and in some cases, authoritarian policies).

Basically, the fear is that populist candidates are really crypto-authoritarians who effectively lie about their preferred policy while running who then display their actual authoritarianism once in power (and before the populist-based support fades). Just like how many DEMs don't campaign on their actual policies (presenting a more moderate face during election time), and when they are elected they are much less moderate than promised. With the power of incumbency (and a polarized political state), all they have to do is win that first election and unseating them is very difficult. Then they are allowed to be much more authoritarian with their policy support.

Orbán is a good example. He started with regressive cultural policies (like with Dobbs, that would be celebrated on here), but didn't stop there. He changed the election laws of Hungary to essentially prop up his party, which props up his role as leader in perpetuity. THAT is an example of just the "muh democracy" that the Left is crying about.

Now, if you want an easy retort, you can look to Brazil. Bolsonaro had the same sort of auth-right policies and allegations as Orbán, but he lost his recent election. So it is still possible for a "populist-right" politician to ultimately be dethrones (which is the hallmark of a democratic nation).

If you want the final form of this fear, the 2 best examples are Putin and Erdogan. Since Putin is a hot-button topic on here, Erdogan is a better discussion point. Here is a good Guardian article on his populist development.

quote:

---

Looking back, Erdogan’s four-month spell in prison in the late 1990s was a formative experience. He emerged with an acute sense of the power of the spoken word and a sharpened resentment toward the elites who openly ridiculed his piety, mocked his working-class background and sought to exile him from the political establishment.

---

Sound familiar? If not a direct politician, but for the populist talking points?

quote:

---

“Erdogan is the inventor of 21st century populism,” argues Soner Cagaptay, author of The New Sultan: Erdogan and the Crisis of Modern Turkey. “His career shows the extraordinary effect one person can have on an entire country.”

---

He's the proto-Trump, just with more sincere religious beliefs and a more real religious connection with actually religious people. He turned Islamic nationalism into a real populism that gave him incredible support within the government of Turkey...and that's when the problems started.

He used this power to change the Constitution of Turkey to grant him more power. He started prosecuting members of the press. He moved Turkey from a secular Muslim nation to more of a theocratic state. And then he consolidated power even further with a fake coup (which actually mimics what the Democrats are doing with January 6. The Turkish coup attempt is a putative/esoteric point of concern and not an example of Trump-authoritarianism because it's really the DEMs who are guilty of that).

So just remember, while it is silly (democracy is a threat to democracy!) and primarily a talking point they've resigned to make (because they are facing slaughter), there are examples of an authoritarian path unfolding following a legitimate democratic vote occurring around the world relatively recently. The threat exists but it's more of a theoretical threat and not a real one, at this time. This is also an example of the "when you point your finger at someone, you have 3 pointing right back at you" scenario, because the DEMs pose the same potential threat (and have not been very quiet about certain policies like court packing, new statehood, etc. to erode our current institutions and promote a system where they retain perpetual power, which is literally their alleged fear from the right-populists they claim are proto-fascists).