Populist Rhetoric: The Tool To Fool

[polichick]

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 02:03 PM - Edit history (2)

Will Democrats and Republicans fall for it in 2016?

To clarify: I mean will people fall for populist rhetoric (persuasive speech) used by those who only wish to con voters, who actually do yearn for populist policies.

[seabeyond]

1. shit... took me a mere two days to see the flaws, and a huge, no thanks. nt

[polichick]

2. It's very seductive language to people on the left and the right.

[cascadiance]

3. I just hoped that they don't succeed in defining it as just "rhetoric"...

Those who would use it as a label, either want to:

1) Define themselves falsely as "populists", and having people buy in to the distortion that they are working for the people when they aren't. "Hope and change" was a similar populist label in the last election that wasn't defined well and had people think they were getting more than what they were being sold. We need people to demand more details of how people defining themselves as "populist" will deliver on policies that will be populist in nature.

2) or succeed in having people think that the term "populism" is only a label, and that people shouldn't pay attention to those who try to run as "populists" as a way to try to discredit them as not having anything of substance to hold out to people, as if to say that it is impossible for anyone to deliver on any kind of populism from political office in today's world, much like many try to sell us on the notion that with today's global environment, the only way to have trade between countries is through what is done with these "free trade" agreements that have been working against the masses both in this country and elsewhere for the benefit of the few. There are other ways, but those are being pushed aside by those in power. Rush Limbaugh earlier did this with the term "liberal", and recently they've tried to do the same thing with the term "progressive". Now they're trying to do the same thing with the term "populist".

We need some real populists, whether it is Elizabeth Warren or someone else, to step up now and show the public an example of REAL populists, that can make a change for the better that they've been hoping for for decades and haven't had. I think the PTB have been really intimidating those that might answer this call behind the scenes, which is a big reason why it is hard to get someone like this.

All the more reason for us to be in the streets asking for a real populist to step up, so that they know at some point that they can no longer brush us aside.

I do think that "populism" is perhaps a better way to define opposition today rather than "liberal" or "progressive". Even though many of us, myself included would proudly call themselves "liberal" or "progressive", these terms try to additionally define those ascribing to these labels as being left wing in our perspectives.

Populism has less of a notion that it is either left or right wing, but more of a notion that it is the masses working against the will of a privileged few. A "populist" movement has more possibility of uniting all of those in these "masses", which could be more apt to include independents and Republicans in an effort to define a way to keep us away from losing our democracy to oligarchs the way it is happening today.

If we can succeed with a populist movement to getting populist politicians, whether they be from the right or left, in Washington, we can later hash out our differences on whether left or right wing policies serve what the masses want. I have belief that most of the masses want more progressive policies like equal rights based on gender, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, and down the road we'll really achieve those two with politicians serving the masses rather than the few. I'd welcome many from the other side that might even work hard against policies that are more left oriented, but who step back and recognize when the masses have spoken for a different way.

If we lose such battles down the road, it will then be a challenge to us to impress upon the masses the need for change in a progressive direction, which I fully believe is a better and more achievable way to do things, rather than having to fight the big bribery machine that is in power today to get anything working our way really, if such policies affect in any way the wealthy having to make sacrifices of their own increasing power and control over the world's resources.

[polichick]

4. Really good points - I was thinking that hope can really...

work against people, sometimes makes them delusional.

[seabeyond]

5. not at the exclusion of democratic though. i really like the third paragraph.

but, not stepping out of democratic party. or no.

[polichick]

6. It will be interesting to see what Bernie does, not just whether or not....

he thinks the people are ready enough for him to run - but also whether he thinks it's best to do it as a Dem or not.

[seabeyond]

7. the very people, seem to be ignoring sanders. and i really like the man. i cannot wait

for the dem debates and seeing what he has.

[seabeyond]

8. and i thought he already said he would not split the vote and had to run as dem. has that changed?

cause that matters for me.

[polichick]

11. I think he did say that, some time ago...

Just wonder what he's thinking now that both parties have wrapped themselves in the rhetoric.

[cascadiance]

10. I've updated my post to define more a little of what I'm thinking...

I don't think any of us want to be Republicans or serve them at all either.

But I do think we want to have a system that serves the masses, the way our constitutional founders wanted it. If the system is run that way, then I have more confidence the good and more progressive policies that serve the masses will be those that traditional Democrats have worked and fought for over in previous times (with the exception of those that were racist in nature, which we did finally divorce ourselves from in the 60's with the reforms that LBJ brought and pushed aside the racists like Strom Thurmond).

I think if we emphasize in campaigning that we want to return to a system like that as a top priority, I think that will appeal to many independents and Republicans, even if they might differ later with us on social issues. They will see that electing Democrats to transition back to that system where we can all have a more fair discussion on what works best for our country as being what they prefer too over the plutocracy that the Republicans and corporatist Democrats are trying to push on us.

Just working for social issues that the PTB don't care about at the expense of so many other issues being legislated against our favor that the wealthy PTB just isn't going to be enough moving forward. They've tried to make it sound that just social issues working in our favor is enough, but the truth is that those positions aren't enough, and we need to hold their feet to the fire on that.

[seabeyond]

12. i am not .... not.... going to the back of the bus. that is off the table. nt

[cascadiance]

16. Nope, no one should be forced to do so other than if that is the only seat left...

... and all in front have been filled.

Yep, there is no way we should have to sacrifice the rights we've all fought hard to get over the years.

And we should be demanding more rights, like a constitutional amendment for the right to vote, which would make it a lot harder for the right to continue their voter disenfranchisement efforts.

No, we should never step away from working for social issues that we all as Democrats want to be worked on. But we shouldn't be accepting that some of these policies that the wealthy don't care about are the ONLY issues that we can hope being worked on in our favor. There are so many other fundamental issues out there that aren't being dealt with now because the wealthy want to shut us down on them now and maybe at some point be able to permanently block us off from them being changed, if they are successful at taking democratic rule from us later. We need to focus energy on those other issues as much or more as social issues now, because if we don't we will all lose later, and have a system where even those social issues that we might work hard for get taken away from us arbitrarily if those in power want to do so later.

[seabeyond]

18. then why is this group suggesting being to the dems what the teabagger to the rpug party.

why are they suggesting we do not vote, if they do not get the populist they support.

why are they say over and over and over.... there is no difference in the parties, when clearly there are HUGE deals.

i do not feel the populist i have listened to is for me AT ALL>

further, i was clearly told, my issues are not the issue that matter.

they are gonna have to get a better game plan for me.

[cascadiance]

23. I don't think that advocating not voting for anyone but a populist is the focus of what we want...

... but that we want those who elect to firmly be working for changes to our system that work for all of us, and to find ways to make sure that they understand if they don't do so, that there will be costs to them in not doing so.

We've been pushed around for so many years as needing to "accept" what they give to us that has not been working for the masses, and has really only been working for those at the top. The left has been given a few social issue bones from the Democrats that they claim to work for. Equally the right has had their own social issue bones that they are thrown too (being against gay marriage, against women's rights for abortion, etc.).

I don't think we should be minimizing those social issues, but I think we should stop making the mistake in thinking that these are the only issues we should care about, which is what they want to force on to us!

Do you LIKE what will happen if TPP is passed? Explain what you would like about that.
Do you LIKE what happens with expansion of H-1B, H-2B, and other "guest worker" programs? Explain why you like that.
Do you LIKE what is being with blanket domestic spying on all of us? Explain what you like about what both parties have done with that too.

The wealthy love those being put in place, and have paid both parties off to make sure such policies that work against us all are passed. This is what we need to make a priority in fighting, but haven't been, as the corporate media ensures that most of us don't understand the effects of such policies are.

[seabeyond]

25. of course populists would not want the focus to be a lost election. though the ramifications would

be felt by the lesser of us, that we are told cannot be the central focus, this campaign.

it is an insult. and it is where i once again say.... i will not be placed at the back of the bus.

the supreme crt does not seem to be of much significance to the populist. it is detrimental for women.

see the issue?

[cascadiance]

31. I want the supreme court to not feel they are monarchs, which would do as much to protect women...

If we had a congress that would force them the way the constitution dictates to follow the rules laid out for other judges in terms of corruption, etc. and not thinking that a head note written by a court clerk is some how "stare decisis" to falsely give them room to use to push corporate personhood, which is why we have so many Republicans now in office that are working against women's interests, when that was used to push the Citizen's United decision that has so screwed up our elections since that time.

I as a populist am NOT asking that we deemphasize prioritization of women's rights. It is right up there with what I want too. But I think ignoring everything else and ignoring the breakdown of democracy just to focus on getting changes made to women's rights will ultimately lead to a system where after they've succeeded in tearing down democracy, they'll take away those gains as well then, and there'll be nothing we can do then to reverse that.

This is why we need to work together to protect our fundamental system of democracy from the systemic change that the powerful is trying to push on to us at this point. If we don't, we'll all be suffering later after it's too late to do anything about it.

And when we emphasize populism as a campaign priority, we should also make it clear that we are NOT as a party saying that women's rights, minority rights, and LGBT rights don't mean anything. We need to carefully craft our message to make sure that those don't get lost in the mix either.

[seabeyond]

40. isnt that rhetoric to step away from, instead of our pragmatic reality. again, women are not going

to the back of the bus. it is our womens lives. that is a pretty damn big deal to me.

if we lose an election we lose the crt even more. it is not a mere election. it is a lifetime appt.

i do not want the idealistic, yet hurt my fuckin life, .... with a wish list.

i want some damn liberal sittin' on the crt.

period.

you can carefully craft.... and i am gonna scream from the top of my voice....

you suggest splittin the party, not voting, losing this election, you work AGAINST me.

[cascadiance]

44. I've never said I wouldn't vote for a Democrat...

All I'm saying is that just accepting what this party has said "they can do", hasn't been enough to stop the messes that we've all felt happening the last decade or so.

I too want a REAL liberal justice. Someone like Erwin Chemerinsky on the court, who not only will protect women's rights, but seek to overturn the corporatist decisions such as "corporate personhood" that we might not get unless we put in office a real progressive president in the coming election. If we don't, we'll be allowing the extreme right to define our party as the "corrupt party" that is in league with the banks, in order to put more of their extremist candidates in power like Ted Cruz who will really make the situations for women a lot worse in the long run. They've already been taking Obama to task for not prosecuting banksters, and are probably being fed the BS that Republicans wouldn't do that, since they'll be told (correctly!) that Reagan prosecuted those in the Savings and Loan crisis that Obama won't from what happened in 2008 and since that time. And there are so many Democrats out there who would hate that label hanging over us, when we feel that it is the Republicans that have really pushed the corporate entities in to power to start with, and have succeeded in putting out the propaganda that the Democrats are the ones responsible. What the third way has been doing is actually giving them that ammunition, which is why so many of us feel we need to stop the Third Way and hold their feet to the fire, before we go out and campaign for them, even if in the end we have to vote for Hillary over another corporate but more extreme right candidate from the Republicans.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. It's pretty much only straight white people who are certain that 'social issues' and 'economic

issues' are two entirely separate areas, it is only straight white people who make the absurd claim that fighting for justice here denies the fight for justice there. It's privileged thinking, a huge giant turn off to millions of minority voters without whom you straight white people can't have a movement unless you go join the conservatives. So what you folks need to do is stop preaching and lecturing and put on your learning togs and thinking caps. Figure out why the straight white and economically already privileged whining as they do about 'social issues' is not a popular nor a progressive message.
I'll give you an example. A DUer straight and white preached to me recently on the subject 'Your rights do not matter, you can not eat your rights, only jobs matter'. Cute stuff. That DUer resides in on of the 29 US States in which LGBT people have absolutely no protection from discrimination in employment. Social issues, economic issues. You can't eat your job if you get fired from you job and have no right to any recourse. 'Your rights don't matter, jobs matter, by which I mean my job, not yours' is right wing populism.
Another theme the straight white populists have running is that 'civil rights' don't cost anyone any money, so the 'PTB' don't really mind extending civil rights. Because all that extra taxation straights imposed on gay families for all time was not lucrative to them, was not a huge burden for us? Because extending insurance and survivor benefits to spouses of same sex couples that had been denied to us for all time has not cost? It's free? Then what was all that money you would not give us before, Straight America?
The logic is so deeply flawed and highly privileged that all I can say is that DU populists who are not just using the rhetoric and really want to be about all the people need to start thinking about their language. They sound a bit Tea Party like. They think they sound like Abbie Hofmann. They need to think about this.

[seabeyond]

48. +1. nt

[cascadiance]

52. I don't think i other other populists have said "social issues don't matter"...

They DO matter, but like you are saying that we shouldn't just dismiss them as non-important to solve and focus *only* on other issues, we should also not say that "achievable" social issues (under corporate dominated parties) are the ONLY issues that matter and we should only be concerned about social issues that the corporate PTB will allow us to get solved (and in so doing create social divisions which divide the populace while they take away more of our rights and our wealth, etc. when they have us divided like this).

I'm tired of myself and other populists being depicted as not caring about these social issues just because we want to take on the big money people and perhaps work together with many others so that they can't silence us with their financial and media power, etc. to do so.

By having a more democratic framework to work with in society if we can win more populist control over government, we can probably also be able to BETTER protect people in these social issue areas too, since there won't be places where the rich and powerful can take away those rights too, like women's rights have been attacked with powerful forces like Hobby Lobby wielding their dollars on the courts, etc.

We need to work together on this so we can all eventually get a better outcome. Working to control those with big money power that have had too much growth of power that really has been the force behind most of the problems we have now is something we should all be looking to work against instead of "accepting" that control over us as "reality", which will ultimately do us all in if they ever solidify that power to the point that we no longer have a democracy.

Do you want corporations being able to overturn any of our laws that they choose to do so if TPP is passed, and legal bodies are set up to do precisely that? No matter how much we fight for laws to be passed and enforced, whether they are social in nature or fiscal in nature, they will then have a veto pen. Do we want that? We need to look beyond what we're being "allowed" to talk about these days.

The other side in the past has ranted about not wanting to give up our sovereignty that they claim happens with what the UN does. I don't want to give up our sovereignty to corporations with the TPP. Even if we can't agree on women's and LGBT rights (which I will still also fight hard for progressive solutions), we can still find common ground with those concerned about our government's sovereignty for us the people to work together with the other side to stop things like the TPP from happening.

If we really want to return to a democracy where we can have the confidence that a well informed public can make decisions properly with democratic processes, we really need to look in these directions. Otherwise, we'll go towards a very divided country that looks to have either authoritarian communist rule or authoritarian fascist rule where ultimately I think both sides lose.

[seabeyond]

47. we just about ALL want more from our politician. we are not fuggin stupid. maybe if this populist

party would quit trying to make us empty minded zombies and sheep, they would get... WE want more too.

we get what the problem is with our politicians. i am all for demanding more from our elected democrats.

but... you may not be, others in the populist party are advocating NOT voting and are saying repeatedly both parties are the same. both parties are not the same. why they say that is to discourage a vote. they are advocating splitting the democratic party.

that is my issue with the populist party.

not a single problem with a single dem the populist party wants to put in. i have no problem, support, and also speak out to what they want from our politicians.

what i do not support, is the populist party holding us hostage to split the party, or encourage people do not go out and vote.

[cascadiance]

53. We can't afford to be split until we get something like instant runoff voting in to place. I agree.

We can't push to split the vote so that Republicans will win in the elections. I fully understand that.

The strategy for corporate controlled elements of both parties is for both of them to be the SAME on non-social issues, where they advocate screwing the 99% to benefit the wealthy. They then divide themselves by working on social issues where a divided populace want them to work on them, so that they can keep us divided, and not unite to have any entities that will look to fight back the corporate serving agendas that elements of both parties have.

For too long we've allowed them to do that, and each year we do that, we've slipped as a country more in to the mess we are in now. This has to stop, or we'll eventually get to the point that all of us whether we are right wing or left wing will be powerless to stop the wealthy from controlling everything and taking more and more of the nation's wealth and resources away from us to put under their control.

What I want to do is advocate that third parties don't hold us hostage, and demand that they say they are running on a single issue. That they won't run and endorse the party that puts in place instant runoff voting if one does so, so that in the future, dividing us the way the powerful want to and have been doing will be a lot harder to do, and many more voices of the people will be heard and measured accurately in an election without it penalizing us in having the wrong person getting elected if we don't vote for the lesser evil of the two major parties. If that is put in place, I would contend that the Democratic Party would have a lot harder time in putting up a "lesser evil" that we feel we have to vote for, and will be more incentivized to put up a candidate that we can all be proud to work for getting elected, as they will know that they will get measured against third parties for their office and also be measured in terms of getting second place votes in case someone wants to vote for one of those progressive third parties.

But we need to move in these directions NOW if we really are going to get some changes needed to deal with the disastrous economy and the potential extinction of our race from climate change. Splitting the party isn't a solution, but finding other ways to put pressure on those in charge of the party that have been doing the wrong things for too long is necessary now.

Defining ourselves as "populist" rather than "progressive" will make it that much harder for the corporate media, etc. to dismiss us the way they have been doing as "far left", when we're advocating things like raising the minimum wage, which a majority of people even in red states have been supporting through ballot measures .

[MisterP]

43. by using it as a mere label (and by saying "words speak louder than actions") they start

dragging it toward BEING a mere label, as something you "just use to get into power" without any principles or consistencies of its own

[mmonk]

9. You prove our point, as to the gravity of the situation.

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[polichick]

13. What is "our point?"

[mmonk]

14. That a populist position is a position someone takes to fool others if one is to take the title

seriously.

[polichick]

15. The problem isn't populist positions, but populist rhetoric...

when that rhetoric is used merely as a con.

[mmonk]

17. Yes, the rhetoric only will be used by both parties as a con.

But not by those who are using it for real reasons. Had to flesh it out. Forgive me.

[polichick]

19. Will we even see anyone in the race using it for real reasons?

Are we really supposed to believe that Hillary Clinton, of the Clintons who handed this party over to Wall Street, is now a dedicated populist?

Trojan Horse II

[mmonk]

22. Bernie Sanders. Possibly O'Malley but only about 85% sure

at this point.

[polichick]

29. For the sake of this country, and especially the next generations, I hope so!

[mmonk]

32. Me too. We are at the tipping point for many.

Wish we could shake people into the seriousness of it before it's too late for so many families. A most difficult chore in such a propagandized age.

[polichick]

37. You're right about the tipping point, and also the difficulty...

of getting through to people - basic facts are not even shared today.

[mmonk]

30. BTW, I corrected my first response.

[polichick]

33. I added a clarification to op too :)

[mmonk]

34. .

[cascadiance]

20. I think the term you would be looking for is "pseudo populist rhetoric"...

... to make it more clear that populism itself isn't just "rhetoric", but that there are many that try to call themselves "populist" are engaged in pseudo populist rhetoric to either make themselves sound populist, or to just minimize the term "populism" as being meaningless. We don't need that being done to populism which Limbaugh and others have done already to the terms "liberal" and now "progressive" over the years.

[polichick]

24. Rhetoric is persuasive speech - I just mean that some use populist rhetoric to con.

[cascadiance]

26. I agree how you define rhetoric there, but let's not have people feel that "populist" is a con

... as well in the same fashion, that those who are engaged in this rhetoric want if they can't persuade us that they are "populist" when they aren't.

That's why I think those that want populism are careful in calling those that are using populism as just "rhetoric" to more accurately have it framed as "pseudo populist" rhetoric.

We should have done the same thing with the third way that try to steal the term "progressive" to label some of their think tanks, etc. as such as "pseudo progressive" to make it clear that what they are calling "progressive" isn't really so.

[polichick]

28. I added a clarification to the op.

[cascadiance]

35. Thanks, I do think we're both on the same page...

I just want to help us make sure that we send the message that we want real delivery on campaign messages, and not just rhetoric, and not to have terms like "populist" and "progressive" that the con artists apply to themselves also be confused as just being rhetorical terms themselves and having no real meaning, when I believe that there are many of us out there and many potential leaders who really want to deliver on populist substance in having what we elect people to do actually getting done for us all.

[polichick]

39. I agree - most people believe in populist policies...

but we (on both sides) too often fall for the con - and hope for the best, when hoping isn't enough.

[99Forever]

21. Seems to me that many already have.

[polichick]

27. That's what it looks like. The Clintons had so much to do with...

handing this party over to Wall Street - but now people buy the uber-populist story?!

And the other side will sell the same story with Jeb. Crazy!

[99Forever]

36. Apparently I am...

... a bad Democrat because I look at what they have done and am not impressed much by what they say.

[polichick]

38. Better to be a thinking person than a "good Dem!"

[djean111]

41. Populist rhetoric = campaign blather. By their deeds. And when Wall Streeters say

hey, it is just politics, regarding Hillary's latest blather, ya know it is, well, just blather.

[polichick]

42. Yeah, they're not a bit worried...

Some of them even have cool new advisory roles!

[pampango]

45. Interesting article: Right-wing populism is based on racism and xenophobia. Left-wing version

is more variable.

For right-wing populism, a variant of racism and xenophobia ... will do the trick ... But given the contemporary left’s complicated relationship to diversity (that pesky conundrum resulting from the dual demands of equality and representation), clear cut racism is no longer an option and neither is a classic xenophobia necessarily related to race, ethnicity or even religion.

For left-wing populism in the era of identity politics, the contortions are more and more demanding. But xenophobia is a pliable concept. ... The fact that xenophobia can accommodate huge variations of nature and intensity is a useful resource for populist movements. This means that ‘the other’ can be expanded to mean just about anything: the elite of course, liberals and intellectuals who favour the complexity of diversity, the ‘traitors amongst us’, but also foreign powers (the EU, the US, China).

The Marine Le Pens, the Geert Wilders, the Tea Party activists ... All of them have refined their xenophobia by moving it away from outright racism. But their appeal is to those people who not only feel they have been cheated by a system that privileges elites of all sorts whilst abandoning them to a mediocre existence, but for whom solutions are to be found in an increasingly closed model of society that can privilege them, protect them, as the ordinary, true people - the keepers of the national flame. A closed model of society and politics is foundational to this strand of populism.

The Democratic Activists: Here we find Occupy and the Indignados, but also the rhetoric of any talented politician or political activist in an era of mass democracy and media driven politics. Those whose explicit use of the concept of accountability (rhetorically and in practice) de facto creates an ‘air de famille’ with populism, but who don’t rely on exclusion or any form of xenophobia to drive the project: those whose vision might encompass enemies, but whose aspirations belong to an open society, mindful of diversity. ... The language of anti-corruption and democratic accountability differs substantially, in that it targets specific laws and specific members of the elite. It is not anti-elitist per se. And in all these points it differs markedly from a populist movement.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/catherine-fieschi/plague-on-both-your-populisms

Right-wing populism obviously involves racism and xenophobia and pretends that they (tea partiers, for instance) are "the ordinary, true people - the keepers of the national flame" who deserve protection from all the "others" out there.

While liberals are generally supportive of "an open society, mindful of diversity" and "target specific laws and specific members of the elite", I don't see this "differs markedly from a populist movement".

[daredtowork]

49. Hillary's Populism includes "Deregulation"

Ay caramba.

[Cheese Sandwich]

50. Yeah most people will fall for it because they always do.

Every election every candidate says popular things to get elected. Most of them go back to serving the elites once the election has passed.

[upaloopa]

51. I guess they would need to know when the

rhetoric is populist rhetoric. Then we would need to know if they believe it.

[kentuck]

54. As opposed to what??

The present political debate?

It seems a little populism might be refreshing?

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Populist rhetoric is the gateway to populist action.

I want to hear more. In fact, at this early stage, I don't really care if it's sincere.

To me, what's germane right now is that the candidates believe that saying it is the key to success.

[winter is coming]

56. Far too often, "helping the middle class" means they get crumbs, while the 1% rakes it in. n/t