Donald Trump is a Populist President.
Populism is misunderstood pretty widely. Populists almost always gain power through scapegoating some group or groups and through encouraging hatred of that group or those groups. Trump, like Adolph Hitler, understands that a minority can rule if it can stir up hatred that is lying dormant in a population.
Populism has nothing to do with Democracy. It has to do with incitement, propaganda and fomenting discord and conflict. It has to do with excusing violence, as long as that violence furthers the dehumanization of the targeted group or groups. Trump has more or less mastered that technique of politics, and has achieved the goal of becoming the chief executive of one of the most powerful nations on this planet.
Populists start wars to further their goals. Populists commit genocide to further their goals. Populists encourage the most violent and unhinged in their society to take up arms and use force to further those goals. Populists blame "the Others" for all of the ills of society and encourage the elimination of those "Others" as a means of achieving goals.
Populists do not care about documents that set the standards for a society. They do not care about laws, justice, or the common good. They care only about their own power and the achievement of their vicious goals. Populists are dangerous in the extreme when they acquire the power of an entire nation.
Populists like Donald Trump are a danger to us all and to the entire planet. We have fought long, deadly wars to rid the world of populists. We must stand against Trump's false goals, lies and fomentation of hatred and violence. If we do not do that, we run the risk of becoming yet another sad part of history. We must not allow hatred to become the rule of law.
That's my opinion on this Wednesday. Thank you for reading it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But I agree that if that is an appropriate label to apply here, your post is on target.
However, it invites the questions.
Shouldn't a populist attempt to be popular?
What if a populist's positions are nearly universally despised?
Keep it up, MM. I am with you. You help people to think. Even when you get your terminology wrong. However, in practice, Drumpf is no populist.
My best to you.
Just looked it up in the OED. I was unaware of that defn.
From the OED:
populist
1. An adherent of a political party formed in the U.S. In Feb. 1892, the chief objects of which were public control of the railways, limitation of private ownership of land, extension of the currency by free coinage of silver and increased issue of paper-money, a graduated income tax, etc.
2. A member of a Russian socio-political party advocating a form of collectivism.
I never regret posting in your threads, even when I might be wrong.