Hey everyone! I would like this to be a healthy and respectful discussion about populism and hear arguments for or against it as a principle.
I’d like to try to establish a definition (and if there’s a better one, please post it!). I googled “what is the definition of populism?” and the response was " a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded."
My own take is the sentiments are good but if the population is ignorant, then the rehtoric and policies required to attract supporters would be ignorant as well. An example of this would be Jim Crow laws. The majority of the population wanted it so that’s what happened. My perception of populism leads me to think there is no filter for immoral or ignorant policies which is why I tend to be against populism. I’m eager to hear your thoughts!
Populism isn’t about majority rule, per se, but rather creating a government that values everyone. Populism fights against the oppression of everyday people that keeps the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. While it has been erroneously used as a tool to propagate hate, nationalism, and discrimination, at its true core, it’s the belief that people are not inherently more intelligent or more deserving because they have money and that everyone deserves their fair share and respect.
Populism is one of those political strategies that always seems like a good idea at first. It speaks directly to the frustrations of the public, bypassing the usual political channels and giving voters the feeling that someone is finally listening to them. At its core, populism is about appealing to ordinary people who feel ignored by the ruling elite. In ancient Greece, direct democracy sometimes operated like this, with angry mobs swaying political decisions, often with chaotic and destructive results. Modern populism works on a much larger scale but follows the same basic structure. A charismatic leader, whether genuinely committed or just opportunistic, rallies the people by telling them that their problems are simple and solvable if only the corrupt establishment would step aside. Once a populist movement gains momentum, it can dominate the political landscape, leaving traditional governance struggling to keep up.
For liberal politicians, populism is a particularly tricky tool to wield. They tend to campaign on policy and incremental progress, but voters rarely believe that establishment politicians will actually deliver sweeping, immediate change. When liberal leaders do try to embrace populism, they often fail to convince voters that they will really follow through, leading to weak enthusiasm and low turnout. On the other hand, right-wing populists tend to make extreme promises, often with little regard for whether they are realistic. This can get them elected, but it sets them up for backlash when they inevitably fail to deliver. The election of Donald Trump is a perfect example. His rhetoric spoke to deep-seated frustrations in the electorate, but his governance does not match the grandiose populist vision he sold to voters. Even so, populism remains a powerful force because most voters do not engage with politics in a rational or deeply analytical way. Many are not politically involved at all, and some actively avoid it. This allows populist narratives to take hold without much scrutiny. Political engagement becomes reactionary, swinging between extremes depending on which faction mobilizes better in a given election. Right now, liberal politicians hesitate to embrace progressive populism because they fear the policy concessions it would require, while right-wing politicians are more than willing to promise anything to secure votes. Populism continues to shape elections in ways that rarely lead to stable or effective governance, yet it remains a defining feature of modern politics.
Please refer to the Populist plank posted on TYT. This is a springboard to effect positive change for the most people no matter their background or creed Jack
Populist movements tend to be built on the idea that if enough people band together under a common cause, the establishment will have no choice but to give them what they want. This is a comforting thought, but it does not hold up under historical scrutiny. The Young Turks’ (TYT) populist plank follows this same flawed logic, promoting the idea that a broad populist coalition can pressure those in power to enact the changes they demand. While it is understandable why people find this appealing, the reality is that this approach does not and cannot provide a clear path to real political victories. Populism as a strategy is inherently reactive, mobilizing frustration rather than building durable structures that can achieve long-term goals. History shows that real change does not come from populist demands alone. It happens when grassroots activism takes root, when organizers create coalitions that plan, strategize, and persuade the broader public to embrace their vision.
Political factions that rely on populism rather than structured activism rarely translate into actual power. Elections do not reward vague ideological movements. They reward candidates and parties that appear viable to the largest number of voters. Populist factions often lack the organizational discipline to achieve more than momentary surges in enthusiasm, which fade once elections arrive. Even when a populist faction gains traction, it is still constrained by the existing political system, which favors the dominant parties and their entrenched influence. Without serious, long-term groundwork, without coalition-building, strategic policy proposals, and real engagement with voters outside the faction, populist efforts collapse under the weight of their own unrealistic expectations. TYT’s populist plank, like so many other populist strategies before it, offers frustration rather than a roadmap to victory. It encourages people to believe that simply demanding change loudly enough will be enough to make it happen. But history suggests otherwise. Change comes when activists do the difficult work of organizing, persuading, and governing, not when they assume that power will be forced to listen just because enough people are angry.
The most likely outcome when populist anger and frustation is capitilized upon swings votes towards con-men, crooks, and bad actors, because those are the ones who are all too willing to say and promise anything they have to in order to capitalize on populist sentiment.
You do realize that Democracy is just another word for Populism don’t you? And by saying Populism is not the way to go then you are also saying Democracy is not the way to go? And as far as what History says about Populism goes: Those who do NOT learn from History are doomed to repeat it. SO I would say we should really learn from history and use Populism as a tool for good and make sure that we have the means to reel it in when we need to
@GalpharDemocracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Populism: A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Explain how those are the same. Explain what you have learned from history as to how to reign in populism, so something like electing a fascist does not happen again.
The MOST POPULAR candidate gets the most votes. I would call that Populism. They are the ones that have the most POPULAR ideas getting the most votes.
As far as how we reign in things so they do not go off the rails into Fascism? That is what the safeguards we have in the Constitution are supposed to be for like the separation of Powers. Those need to start to be enforced. And if something is found to be needing a change; we pass a frackin’ amendment
That is not the definition of Democracy or Populism.
How’s that working out for the United States right now? What do you do when a government’s leaders just decide to ignore the rule of law, like what Trump and his administration is currently trying to do (and succeeding at in many cases).