There is a lot of splitting hairs and mental masturbation in this article with the clear goal of positive branding, for example, the #MeToo, BLM and We Will Resist "movements" as popular and MAGA as populist and negative.
I think there is a distinction without a difference. Trump and his followers are more like Brexit. It is interesting to me that the working class, proletariat, uprising against the elite bourgeois, having been through it before and resulting in milestone progress like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, is labeled as a negative populist movement by left people outside of the actual bourgeois class. Are these left people mistaken that they do somehow belong in the bourgeois class? Or are they sleepwalking to their own destruction having been brainwashed by establishment-owned media and their tech algorithms? Because, from any rational historical political categorization perspective, the left people would be aligned with the proletariat... and be motivated to not negative brand what is a popular uprising against THE MAN.
Just struggling to agree with much of what is written here. This is an academic treatise which comes down to earth with the gun, locked and loaded, aimed at Trump.
Only my opinion, but one sees explained here the corrosive effect of what is actually "identity politics," the culpability for which is blamed on the populist of the right, and exonerates the populist of the left.
Identity politics is seen today and blatantly practiced by the woke, "the enemy within" which is successfully destroying western culture and liberal values as this "fifth column" sweeps through our institutions.
It is difficult to comprehend that candidates of a major party can be excused as "not populist" when expounding their ideology when seeking nomination, but as being populist when democratically elected my the majority, when enacting their ideology when in power. Maybe one has missed the point?
But again in this article only mentioned, is Trump as a vile perpetrator of populism, but never a mention of Harris as being "rebranded" by the Democrats, to erase all her previous utterances and support for far left ideologies.
The author unconvincingly describes why "Right populist leaders are more dangerous than "Leftist populist leaders?" This reasoning is just explained by false ideological beliefs, in my opinion, the left- good; the right-bad.
The arguments made by the author to distinguish between popular vs populist movements are rather confusing. It is true that the extreme right often lashes on ethnicity as a wedge to divide in vs out groups. But the extreme left is hardly innocent. For example, DEI elevates skin color to part of one's core identity, effectively multiplying social divisions. Wouldn't it be more constructive for us to emphatically denounce both extremes and offer clear alternatives vs. split hairs over which one is worse, skin color or ethnicity? The latter is only going to pour more gasoline on an already raging fire I am afraid.
hmmm. I didn't find this 'everything I needed to know' about yet another '-ism.' Generally, I find any academic description of an '-ism' a reductive and often poor fit for something real world apparently being characterized.
This author appears to start with the premise that Trump (strong-man) populism is bad, then constructs and argument to arrive at that conclusion. Could one not construct a similar argument to the effect that Bidenism/Harrisism is bad because it seeks to neuter the supreme court, a liberal institution standing in the way of implementation of its conception of the 'will of the people', or that they champion 'the people' against corporate elites and a third minority group, i.e., 'extreme MAGA rightists'?
The distinctions between the goodness and badness of the left and right dissolve according to this author's distinctions between popular and populist objectives.
This article reminded me bit of Ken Burn’s graduation address at Brandeis this past June. In it, among other things, he reminded his audience (and anyone else who tuned in then or later) that the United States (US) is also lower case ‘us'. All of us. He strongly suggested that whenever anyone started talking about ‘them’ , “Run!” I think I would have said instead, “Stop! Listen to yourself!"
I often get the feeling that if we could always put the ‘us’ first instead of all the various other ways Americans use to define themselves and others; Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, socialists, Marxist, Christians, atheists, Catholics, Jews, Trans and Cis; the list is virtually endless and growing. we might be onto something.
Spoiler alert: I speak as one trained in Anthropology with a specialty in human origins and evolution, so I imagine I may ave a somewhat longer view of humanity than many others might. So I would vastly enlarge Mr. Burn’s ‘us’.
What matters, and I know I’m a hopeless romantic in this, is our shared humanity. All those differences about which we make so much, and over which we periodically kill large numbers of our own are so much less than what we share. Perhaps in that we are all populists.
Sorry, but I think I'll believe my lying eyes rather than this. 𝘓𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 “𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.”
Really? So the American Left isn't driven by disdain for "deplorables", "billionaires", "greedy corporations" and Zionists (and, not so long ago, immigrants)? It's not representing a "coalition of the ascendant"? It's minorities are beleaguered, like people who took out loans to get their MFAs from Brown?
Thanks for this great piece. You did not mention religion, which in the US is a driving force behind Right Wing populism. I thought I’d share this selection from my 2017 post “The Tribe has Spoken.” I hope it’s not too long.
“Back in the early 1980’s, evangelicals were riding high. Held in thrall by a coterie of coiffed, tanned, pompous prophets like Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart and the divine duo Jim and Tammy Fae Bakker, evangelicals were convinced that God had chosen them to lead our country out of its sinful malaise.
And it certainly seemed that way. Blessed by the almighty, their farming and energy-based communities were thriving (remember “let a Yankee freeze in the dark?”), while the debauched cities on both coasts were miasmas of crime, drugs, corruption and godlessness. The Moral Majority had been a driving force behind the election of Ronald Reagan, who, if not religious himself, at least had a wife with faith in astrology. Best of all, a cruel and mysterious plague was decimating the ranks of homosexuals.
But things did not turn out as prophesied for evangelicals. Over the past four decades the carnal coastal cities have prospered to a degree that can only be described as miraculous while the oil and ag economies are struggling. A black man was elected president TWICE. The opioid plague is mostly ravaging non-urban communities. And gays can now get married! We all know that the hand of God works in mysterious ways, but this is ridiculous.
So should it really be so surprising that evangelicals swooned when a coiffed, tanned (well, oranged) blowhard emerged from the hell of New York City like the beast from Revelations, promising to Make America Great Again? Oh, Rapture! Finally, a true prophet! Sure Falwell, Swaggart, and Baker were frauds, but this guy’s the real deal! He says what’s on his mind! He’ll drain the swamp! He’ll build a wall! Jesus may have abandoned us, but Trump will put us back on top!
When Trump fizzles out, evangelicals will probably just find a new prophet. Or, here’s a thought; they might consider doing something completely different and become Christians.”
There is a lot of splitting hairs and mental masturbation in this article with the clear goal of positive branding, for example, the #MeToo, BLM and We Will Resist "movements" as popular and MAGA as populist and negative.
I think there is a distinction without a difference. Trump and his followers are more like Brexit. It is interesting to me that the working class, proletariat, uprising against the elite bourgeois, having been through it before and resulting in milestone progress like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, is labeled as a negative populist movement by left people outside of the actual bourgeois class. Are these left people mistaken that they do somehow belong in the bourgeois class? Or are they sleepwalking to their own destruction having been brainwashed by establishment-owned media and their tech algorithms? Because, from any rational historical political categorization perspective, the left people would be aligned with the proletariat... and be motivated to not negative brand what is a popular uprising against THE MAN.
Just struggling to agree with much of what is written here. This is an academic treatise which comes down to earth with the gun, locked and loaded, aimed at Trump.
Only my opinion, but one sees explained here the corrosive effect of what is actually "identity politics," the culpability for which is blamed on the populist of the right, and exonerates the populist of the left.
Identity politics is seen today and blatantly practiced by the woke, "the enemy within" which is successfully destroying western culture and liberal values as this "fifth column" sweeps through our institutions.
It is difficult to comprehend that candidates of a major party can be excused as "not populist" when expounding their ideology when seeking nomination, but as being populist when democratically elected my the majority, when enacting their ideology when in power. Maybe one has missed the point?
But again in this article only mentioned, is Trump as a vile perpetrator of populism, but never a mention of Harris as being "rebranded" by the Democrats, to erase all her previous utterances and support for far left ideologies.
The author unconvincingly describes why "Right populist leaders are more dangerous than "Leftist populist leaders?" This reasoning is just explained by false ideological beliefs, in my opinion, the left- good; the right-bad.
The arguments made by the author to distinguish between popular vs populist movements are rather confusing. It is true that the extreme right often lashes on ethnicity as a wedge to divide in vs out groups. But the extreme left is hardly innocent. For example, DEI elevates skin color to part of one's core identity, effectively multiplying social divisions. Wouldn't it be more constructive for us to emphatically denounce both extremes and offer clear alternatives vs. split hairs over which one is worse, skin color or ethnicity? The latter is only going to pour more gasoline on an already raging fire I am afraid.
hmmm. I didn't find this 'everything I needed to know' about yet another '-ism.' Generally, I find any academic description of an '-ism' a reductive and often poor fit for something real world apparently being characterized.
This author appears to start with the premise that Trump (strong-man) populism is bad, then constructs and argument to arrive at that conclusion. Could one not construct a similar argument to the effect that Bidenism/Harrisism is bad because it seeks to neuter the supreme court, a liberal institution standing in the way of implementation of its conception of the 'will of the people', or that they champion 'the people' against corporate elites and a third minority group, i.e., 'extreme MAGA rightists'?
The distinctions between the goodness and badness of the left and right dissolve according to this author's distinctions between popular and populist objectives.
This article reminded me bit of Ken Burn’s graduation address at Brandeis this past June. In it, among other things, he reminded his audience (and anyone else who tuned in then or later) that the United States (US) is also lower case ‘us'. All of us. He strongly suggested that whenever anyone started talking about ‘them’ , “Run!” I think I would have said instead, “Stop! Listen to yourself!"
I often get the feeling that if we could always put the ‘us’ first instead of all the various other ways Americans use to define themselves and others; Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, socialists, Marxist, Christians, atheists, Catholics, Jews, Trans and Cis; the list is virtually endless and growing. we might be onto something.
Spoiler alert: I speak as one trained in Anthropology with a specialty in human origins and evolution, so I imagine I may ave a somewhat longer view of humanity than many others might. So I would vastly enlarge Mr. Burn’s ‘us’.
What matters, and I know I’m a hopeless romantic in this, is our shared humanity. All those differences about which we make so much, and over which we periodically kill large numbers of our own are so much less than what we share. Perhaps in that we are all populists.
Sorry, but I think I'll believe my lying eyes rather than this. 𝘓𝘦𝘧𝘵-𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 “𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.”
Really? So the American Left isn't driven by disdain for "deplorables", "billionaires", "greedy corporations" and Zionists (and, not so long ago, immigrants)? It's not representing a "coalition of the ascendant"? It's minorities are beleaguered, like people who took out loans to get their MFAs from Brown?
I think not.
Thanks for this great piece. You did not mention religion, which in the US is a driving force behind Right Wing populism. I thought I’d share this selection from my 2017 post “The Tribe has Spoken.” I hope it’s not too long.
“Back in the early 1980’s, evangelicals were riding high. Held in thrall by a coterie of coiffed, tanned, pompous prophets like Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart and the divine duo Jim and Tammy Fae Bakker, evangelicals were convinced that God had chosen them to lead our country out of its sinful malaise.
And it certainly seemed that way. Blessed by the almighty, their farming and energy-based communities were thriving (remember “let a Yankee freeze in the dark?”), while the debauched cities on both coasts were miasmas of crime, drugs, corruption and godlessness. The Moral Majority had been a driving force behind the election of Ronald Reagan, who, if not religious himself, at least had a wife with faith in astrology. Best of all, a cruel and mysterious plague was decimating the ranks of homosexuals.
But things did not turn out as prophesied for evangelicals. Over the past four decades the carnal coastal cities have prospered to a degree that can only be described as miraculous while the oil and ag economies are struggling. A black man was elected president TWICE. The opioid plague is mostly ravaging non-urban communities. And gays can now get married! We all know that the hand of God works in mysterious ways, but this is ridiculous.
So should it really be so surprising that evangelicals swooned when a coiffed, tanned (well, oranged) blowhard emerged from the hell of New York City like the beast from Revelations, promising to Make America Great Again? Oh, Rapture! Finally, a true prophet! Sure Falwell, Swaggart, and Baker were frauds, but this guy’s the real deal! He says what’s on his mind! He’ll drain the swamp! He’ll build a wall! Jesus may have abandoned us, but Trump will put us back on top!
When Trump fizzles out, evangelicals will probably just find a new prophet. Or, here’s a thought; they might consider doing something completely different and become Christians.”
And thanks for your inspiring conference.