Is populism a bad thing or just a word the minority use when

>>1840688
Populism is a buzzword that the establishment uses to demonize and discredit popular movements against their corruption and abuse of power. Hence why both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were decried as "populists" despite having little in common policy-wise aside from anti-establishment rhetoric.

Usually I see it applied to sophists who make use of punchy rhetoric that appeals to the majority. They tell people what they want to hear even if it it's false/impractical.

Yes, because the majority of the populace is dumb fucks and populist use that to say super stupid stuff to get their support.

>ima gonna raise your salaries
>ima gonna build a wall and they're gonna pay for it
>ima gonna bring back your youth totally

>>1840802
Who are you quoting?

Also, not an argument.

It's an amorphous term generally used to try and discredit any political position or movement that runs contrary to what the neoliberal elite want.

>>1840809

He's strawmanning but those (at least the first two) are pretty common populist sentiments (the latter can be generalized to playing on national/ethnic/religious tensions). It's very rare the majority will argue with you if you say you're going to raise salaries or make them pay less taxes ("the rich can pay it!")

And yes it is an argument.

>>1840802
> majority of the populace is dumb fucks
> but no me, it isn't like I can ever be a part of majority! XD

File: 06ae28c2-a943-4289-962f-9c86e16a583b.jpg (51KB, 445x445px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 445x445px

Populism is bad because it simplifies politics just to appeal to the masses. Politics is complex shit.

>>1840688

Yes, it's not good for the fact that it inherently does not believe in the political process or supports the notion that a republic is for all citizens to run together.

>>1840824

Here's the thing - nobody is well informed on everything, not even most things. Nobody, not even very intelligent people. My sister is a doctor and is very intelligent, but if you ask her about history or politics she doesn't have a fucking clue. It doesn't interest her, she doesn't read about it.

The majority of people are good at SOMETHING. They're intelligent in their field. They're fucking idiots outside it. This goes for basically all of us. Most people aren't terribly civic minded, either, and don't take the time to familiarize themselves with actual policy. They vote based on whatever shit they read in the news or hear in a speech, because people - even intelligent experts in very demanding fields - are busy and most consider they have better things to do than constantly follow politics.

>>1840833
Why are citizens even allowed to vote then?

>>1840855

Because some politicians expanded the franchise counting on the votes of the people they extended it to.

>>1840855
To represent one or more of their interests as well as the interests of other citizens regardless of whether or not they like them. Electing someone because you only want your interests pushed while wanting to not just ignore but actively suppress the interests of other citizens misses the whole point, and is what makes populism so dangerous.

>>1840688
It's only bad when the policy being advocated for is bad. Populism is good if the population is well-informed.

>>1840855
Because despite the shortcomings of letting idiots vote it's still better than autocracy or plutocracy.

File: 3182668075_e34ea4a0ff_o.jpg (9KB, 400x129px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x129px

>>1840855
Mostly for legitimacy. I am sure, no matter how we will vote they already decided how to react to each case or melded all their alternative strategies to be as close to each other as possible.

>>1840855
So that there interests are representated

>>1840888
Not an argument.

File: 2000px-Nolan-chart.svg.png (136KB, 2000x2000px)

136KB, 2000x2000px

>>1840688
No, populism is bad because the majority of people are stupid. Libertarianism and maximum freedom/individualism is always better.

>>1842031
>the meme chart

>>1840688
>a word the minority use when they disagree with the majority?
Yes, this is the right answer. It is a meaningless buzzword.

>>1840688
People pretend to love democracy and speak out against populism. Honestly, most people myself included have no ability to keep themselves ideologically constent it is almost in our nature to be hypocrites

People don't understand statistics.

There is roughly the same amount of people on both sides of the bell curve. Most people aren't particularly stupid or smart. It's common for demagoges to aim for the lowest common denominator because if the guy "gets it" everyone else does - the easier to understand your platform is, the more potential supporters you get.

As for why democracy is something I believe should be upheld: because the legitimacy of government relies on popular support politicians are more reliant on support of general society (rather than just a brutal police force or a mercenary army, for instances) and thus the interest's of general society and the politicians are more likely to align.

Regular popular elections also provide means for shifting leadership without bloodshed. Changing between democratic governments isn't a traumatic event for a nation-state.

>>1842135
>because the
because if the*

"Populism" means flattering the many in low places by telling them the few in high places don't deserve to be. e.g., the highly educated are just more indoctrinated/devious, the rich merely exploit the poor, gut feeling matters more than expert opinion, etc. It can be right or left wing, or both at once. By its very nature it is scornful of nuance, balance, or careful reasoning.

>>1842031
>Libertarianism

Not even 0 times.

>>1840789
Yeah pretty much

>>1842268
>By its very nature it is scornful of nuance, balance, or careful reasoning.
[Citation needed]

>>1840688
if you're being called populist by the media, you must done something right
every popular leader can be considered populist, but only when you're disturbing the status quo you're being called populist