The "right wing populists" are correct that immigration (in both the US and Europe) is totally out of control. I don't want to "defeat" that, I want to restrict immigration according to some actual sensible sustainable policy. So as a citizen (remember those?) of the US (and a registered Democrat for 50 years), I will be voting for Trump.
The way many use "populism," it means only that the electorate has policy preferences that the managerial elite will refuse to respect, regardless of how elections turn out.
I suppose this is brave for a Columbia faculty member. But it focuses on the relative arcana of the AfD and omits to say what is appealing to American right wing populism (and French, British, and Italian populism, too--remember Brexit?). The implication is that what drives American right wing populism is the fear of immigration. And if that is it, then it is old-fashioned jingoism--the fear of OTHER people.
How should relatively centrist people (admittedly I am a Brahmin centrist) address that fear? We can use data to show that immigration is good, that immigrants do not commit more crimes than other residents, etc. But that makes us seem even more out of touch. We are just establishment figures telling hoi polloi that they are bad people. And of course that will backfire.
The only solution is to listen to them and adopt policies that really address their concerns, whether we agree with them or not. The left will scream bloody murder. But the left has few votes in America. To create a sustainable majority, one must truly listen to their concerns and adopt policies that address them. Is that pandering? Sure. But that is part of what democracy is about.
Let's be clear. I think there are very few people who "fear" immigration. What they fear is pure, unfettered migration without any kind of checks or balances on the people coming in. This is essentially illegal immigration and there is no good reason for it, why else would any country or nation have immigration laws, passports and visas? Why does the author even bring up racism and xenophobia when later she tells us the surveys don't even support those being present in any great degree with populists? Let's please stop conflating controlled immigration with uncontrolled immigration which even Mayorkas admits is happening as we speak.
THANK YOU. I get so tired of hearing the same old thing. It's lazy. I know many right wing folks up and down the economic scale and yes, some still have lingering traces of racist tendencies (mostly people 60 and over). But the vast majority of them respect and welcome legal immigrants. And I live in a state where the hispanic and Asian population is very significant. It's more of a class thing I think. If someone is hard working, is looking for opportunity, and respects basic universal values then come on in, through legal channels. But this frankly open door to who knows who or what in these days and times is madness. What is the point of having a country anyway if anyone anytime anywhere can come in at will? And no, I certainly do not trust that the current administration is doing anything on this issue other than rhetoric aimed at correcting a glaring political liability.
And by the way, I get why people come here for a better life, my Irish great grandparents did and it's a wonderful thing. But let's be realistic and admit that very few of the millions coming here are not "asylum seekers" but those coming for a better life. And yes, there are some coming for nefarious purposes.
I agree that the Biden Administration has done a bad job regarding our southern border. But there are much more important issues to worry about--the economy, the competition between democracy and authoritarianism in the world, global warming, just to name a few. Elevating the border issues to the status of a problem that should decide a presidential election is, i believe, about unwarranted fear that is typically what demagogues play on. I don't expect to convince you of that, but please consider the possibility.
Yes there are many other issues, however it appears that immigration is high on the list for many voters just below inflation and healthcare. But we're also responding to the current article which mentions immigration as a specific issue for "right wing populism.
Yes, authoritarianism and lawfare are another huge problem which this administration seems to be exhibiting.
As for global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it, I have a very hard time getting overexcited about the apocalypse when our global leaders are running around in carbon-spewing jets to have conferences about it. I'd rather focus on keeping the environment healthy and keeping energy dense fuel options open not only for Westernized countries, but for Third World countries who don't have time to worry about the environment because they are too busy getting their next meal.
Daniel Klein is professor of economics and JIN Chair at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, "Populism = Bad in politics: This is analogous to the word waywardness we witness when reading adversaries of ‘neoliberalism’—and, inversely, when reading those who use ‘democratic’ to mean good. A lot of classical liberals are using ‘populist’ in a fuzzy, untenable, wayward way, and it seems, in effect, to mean politically bad or as a codeword for certain political baddies. The test to put to them is two-fold: First, ask, “What do you mean by ‘populist’?” Let us suppose that they answer that question, and in a way that does not effectively reduce ‘populist’ to politically bad. Then ask: “OK, so you distinguish between bad political parties or movements that are populist and those that are not populist. Tell me which baddies you do not count as ‘populist’ and let’s test to see whether your definition really excludes them from ‘populism’ as you claim to understand it.” One has to agree with another point of view than this one expressed in her article. 😐
While I am in general agreement with the points that Prof. Berman makes, including the comparison with the AfD, I think she is too optimistic about the ability of change away from Trump/AfD.at least in the in the short term.
Economics: Trump has strongest support in the rural and rust-belt areas and the AfD is strongest in the former East Germany which has lagged behind its West Germany brethren. Indeed, greater Berlin is "blue" while the surrounding area in AfD "Red." Decent jobs for non-college attendees (esp. men) will be slow in coming.
Women's movement: The similar population groups in both countries face the weakening of the male role in the family and in the world. The new jobs that are created, draw many more women than men leaving the younger men with the least attractive positions. Resentment grows from this.
Racism: There are these long-term undercurrents in both countries. The Black movements in the US coupled with the Asian migration more recently, provide handy scapegoats.The pre-WWII German anti-semitism transfers itself to anti-Muslim views, especially in poorer areas such as the Eastern part of the country.
I'd like to be more optimistic about the possibility of change in the both countries, but working through these issues is going to take many years.
One of the problems in Europe, even in the oldest democratic societies as Sweden is that many people think and feel that democracy = the rule of majority after 4 years electoral period. But majority decisions and positions do not have to be democratic and alternatives to democracy are not only one party dictatorship or military government. Right-wing populists party are combining nationalism, populism and ethnocracy where the idea in practice is majoritarian governance if the majority can be shaped to be anti-democratic .
Negativity bias is a key driver of why the representation gap is so hard to close. Positive facts about the strength of the economy or the benefits of immigration will always get drowned out by negative narratives to the contrary, even if those negative narratives aren't reflective of facts on the ground. Grassroots campaigns that educate on negativity bias can be a good way to allow for the accomplishment of options 2 and 3.
Why would you want to defeat it? Left wingism doesn't seem to be making too many people happier.
The "right wing populists" are correct that immigration (in both the US and Europe) is totally out of control. I don't want to "defeat" that, I want to restrict immigration according to some actual sensible sustainable policy. So as a citizen (remember those?) of the US (and a registered Democrat for 50 years), I will be voting for Trump.
The way many use "populism," it means only that the electorate has policy preferences that the managerial elite will refuse to respect, regardless of how elections turn out.
I suppose this is brave for a Columbia faculty member. But it focuses on the relative arcana of the AfD and omits to say what is appealing to American right wing populism (and French, British, and Italian populism, too--remember Brexit?). The implication is that what drives American right wing populism is the fear of immigration. And if that is it, then it is old-fashioned jingoism--the fear of OTHER people.
How should relatively centrist people (admittedly I am a Brahmin centrist) address that fear? We can use data to show that immigration is good, that immigrants do not commit more crimes than other residents, etc. But that makes us seem even more out of touch. We are just establishment figures telling hoi polloi that they are bad people. And of course that will backfire.
The only solution is to listen to them and adopt policies that really address their concerns, whether we agree with them or not. The left will scream bloody murder. But the left has few votes in America. To create a sustainable majority, one must truly listen to their concerns and adopt policies that address them. Is that pandering? Sure. But that is part of what democracy is about.
Let's be clear. I think there are very few people who "fear" immigration. What they fear is pure, unfettered migration without any kind of checks or balances on the people coming in. This is essentially illegal immigration and there is no good reason for it, why else would any country or nation have immigration laws, passports and visas? Why does the author even bring up racism and xenophobia when later she tells us the surveys don't even support those being present in any great degree with populists? Let's please stop conflating controlled immigration with uncontrolled immigration which even Mayorkas admits is happening as we speak.
THANK YOU. I get so tired of hearing the same old thing. It's lazy. I know many right wing folks up and down the economic scale and yes, some still have lingering traces of racist tendencies (mostly people 60 and over). But the vast majority of them respect and welcome legal immigrants. And I live in a state where the hispanic and Asian population is very significant. It's more of a class thing I think. If someone is hard working, is looking for opportunity, and respects basic universal values then come on in, through legal channels. But this frankly open door to who knows who or what in these days and times is madness. What is the point of having a country anyway if anyone anytime anywhere can come in at will? And no, I certainly do not trust that the current administration is doing anything on this issue other than rhetoric aimed at correcting a glaring political liability.
And by the way, I get why people come here for a better life, my Irish great grandparents did and it's a wonderful thing. But let's be realistic and admit that very few of the millions coming here are not "asylum seekers" but those coming for a better life. And yes, there are some coming for nefarious purposes.
I agree that the Biden Administration has done a bad job regarding our southern border. But there are much more important issues to worry about--the economy, the competition between democracy and authoritarianism in the world, global warming, just to name a few. Elevating the border issues to the status of a problem that should decide a presidential election is, i believe, about unwarranted fear that is typically what demagogues play on. I don't expect to convince you of that, but please consider the possibility.
Yes there are many other issues, however it appears that immigration is high on the list for many voters just below inflation and healthcare. But we're also responding to the current article which mentions immigration as a specific issue for "right wing populism.
Yes, authoritarianism and lawfare are another huge problem which this administration seems to be exhibiting.
As for global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it, I have a very hard time getting overexcited about the apocalypse when our global leaders are running around in carbon-spewing jets to have conferences about it. I'd rather focus on keeping the environment healthy and keeping energy dense fuel options open not only for Westernized countries, but for Third World countries who don't have time to worry about the environment because they are too busy getting their next meal.
Daniel Klein is professor of economics and JIN Chair at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, "Populism = Bad in politics: This is analogous to the word waywardness we witness when reading adversaries of ‘neoliberalism’—and, inversely, when reading those who use ‘democratic’ to mean good. A lot of classical liberals are using ‘populist’ in a fuzzy, untenable, wayward way, and it seems, in effect, to mean politically bad or as a codeword for certain political baddies. The test to put to them is two-fold: First, ask, “What do you mean by ‘populist’?” Let us suppose that they answer that question, and in a way that does not effectively reduce ‘populist’ to politically bad. Then ask: “OK, so you distinguish between bad political parties or movements that are populist and those that are not populist. Tell me which baddies you do not count as ‘populist’ and let’s test to see whether your definition really excludes them from ‘populism’ as you claim to understand it.” One has to agree with another point of view than this one expressed in her article. 😐
While I am in general agreement with the points that Prof. Berman makes, including the comparison with the AfD, I think she is too optimistic about the ability of change away from Trump/AfD.at least in the in the short term.
Economics: Trump has strongest support in the rural and rust-belt areas and the AfD is strongest in the former East Germany which has lagged behind its West Germany brethren. Indeed, greater Berlin is "blue" while the surrounding area in AfD "Red." Decent jobs for non-college attendees (esp. men) will be slow in coming.
Women's movement: The similar population groups in both countries face the weakening of the male role in the family and in the world. The new jobs that are created, draw many more women than men leaving the younger men with the least attractive positions. Resentment grows from this.
Racism: There are these long-term undercurrents in both countries. The Black movements in the US coupled with the Asian migration more recently, provide handy scapegoats.The pre-WWII German anti-semitism transfers itself to anti-Muslim views, especially in poorer areas such as the Eastern part of the country.
I'd like to be more optimistic about the possibility of change in the both countries, but working through these issues is going to take many years.
One of the problems in Europe, even in the oldest democratic societies as Sweden is that many people think and feel that democracy = the rule of majority after 4 years electoral period. But majority decisions and positions do not have to be democratic and alternatives to democracy are not only one party dictatorship or military government. Right-wing populists party are combining nationalism, populism and ethnocracy where the idea in practice is majoritarian governance if the majority can be shaped to be anti-democratic .
Negativity bias is a key driver of why the representation gap is so hard to close. Positive facts about the strength of the economy or the benefits of immigration will always get drowned out by negative narratives to the contrary, even if those negative narratives aren't reflective of facts on the ground. Grassroots campaigns that educate on negativity bias can be a good way to allow for the accomplishment of options 2 and 3.