Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
Yes I think a problem with the analyses HA has been posting is they don't do much to distinguish US progressivism from US conservatism, and in failing to do so they miss some fundamental political ideas.
The underlying fundamental of left-wing politics is opposition to the elites and wanting more equality of power and wealth, seeking to distribute power among all the people. Any definition of 'populism' which conflates that core left-wing goal of actual populism, with the right-wing's occasional fake populism, is problematic. The right-wing's tendency to find charismatic billionaire/millionaire elites (e.g. Trump, Tucker etc) who trick their followers into thinking that society's ills aren't caused by those with money and power who control society but are instead caused by some disliked minority group with no money and no power (e.g. immigrants, transgender people etc), and that the solution is to give elites tax cuts and deregulation, and to crack down hard on the disliked minority groups... is a very different type of 'populism' to the left-wing's idea of actually wanting to oppose elites and help the masses.
Unfortunately it's a common take by champagne-drinking centrist elites to look down their noses at both those groups and say that everything's fine, and that therefore the leftist progressives are terrible for trying to take some of the wealth and power away from those elites and share it with the commoners, and that the right-wing demagogues are terrible for demonizing the harmless minorities with no money and no power. The centrist elites have a tendency to call both 'populism' and oppose both, but they are two very different phenomena. Unfortunately at the end of the day, when it comes down to it, if those champagne drinking elitist centrists are forced to pick a side, they tend to selfishly prefer the right-wing demagogues who are hurting harmless minorities with no money and no power over the left wing progressives who would cause the elitist centrists themselves to have to share some of their money and power with the masses.
The underlying fundamental of left-wing politics is opposition to the elites and wanting more equality of power and wealth, seeking to distribute power among all the people. Any definition of 'populism' which conflates that core left-wing goal of actual populism, with the right-wing's occasional fake populism, is problematic. The right-wing's tendency to find charismatic billionaire/millionaire elites (e.g. Trump, Tucker etc) who trick their followers into thinking that society's ills aren't caused by those with money and power who control society but are instead caused by some disliked minority group with no money and no power (e.g. immigrants, transgender people etc), and that the solution is to give elites tax cuts and deregulation, and to crack down hard on the disliked minority groups... is a very different type of 'populism' to the left-wing's idea of actually wanting to oppose elites and help the masses.
Unfortunately it's a common take by champagne-drinking centrist elites to look down their noses at both those groups and say that everything's fine, and that therefore the leftist progressives are terrible for trying to take some of the wealth and power away from those elites and share it with the commoners, and that the right-wing demagogues are terrible for demonizing the harmless minorities with no money and no power. The centrist elites have a tendency to call both 'populism' and oppose both, but they are two very different phenomena. Unfortunately at the end of the day, when it comes down to it, if those champagne drinking elitist centrists are forced to pick a side, they tend to selfishly prefer the right-wing demagogues who are hurting harmless minorities with no money and no power over the left wing progressives who would cause the elitist centrists themselves to have to share some of their money and power with the masses.
Comment