Why Populist Politicians Are Unbeatable As Facts Don't Matter

Or she is just telling the truth. If only the left would listen. 

Pick an enemy and blast them to hell.

The right picked poor people and taxes. The left picked everyone who supports the right. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Yes well it's unfortunate that the left refuses to be populist.

Wrong.

It is just that they are often not that good at it. Maybe they are out classed by the right who can afford the social psychologists to make a better campaign on it -- even if it is false.

But Layton was definitely a populist So was Barrett, Douglas and others.

So was Trudeau even if he was full of shit, lying, and an elite himself running for an elitist, establishment party. What did you think all that shit about middle class was? It had nothing to do with actual policy intentions (a tax cut for the upper income earners at the cost of the very top income earners and ultimately, those from above the middle down). It was an appeal to populism that was a lie -- like most of them are.

Yes, Ford is also a populist. Full of shit like most of them. They would like nothing better than to have you think all populists are full of shit so that they won't have to make the pretence and a sincere one would never get elected.

I mean genuinely populist not full of shit populist. 

Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite.[1] Critics of populism have described it as a political approach that seeks to disrupt the existing social order by solidifying and mobilizing the animosity of the "commoner" or "the people" against "privileged elites" and the "establishment".[2] Populists can fall anywhere on the traditional left–right political spectrum of politics and often portray both bourgeois capitalists and socialist organizers as unfairly dominating the political sphere.[3]

Political parties and politicians[4] often use the terms "populist" and "populism" as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as demagogy, merely appearing to empathize with the public through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum.[5]

Rev Pesky wrote:

Shania Twain on Trump:

he seemed honest​

bekayne wrote:

Rev Pesky wrote:

Shania Twain on Trump:

he seemed honest​

LOL.  I like that.

And there are two kinds of populism, economic populism and cultural populism. 

voice of the damned wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Twain is a bimbo country singer looking to suck up to country fans (all who are right wing)

 

So you're saying that every single person who listens to country is right-wing?

And we're wondering why the left has trouble broadening its support? You're basically saying that it's impossible to be left-wing if you listen to certain types of music.

Does that include Tim McGraw, Willie Nelson, the Dixie Cicks, etc.?

Ken Burch wrote:

 The social movements do nothing BUT fight for "the rights and powers of the people in the struggle against a privileged elite".  Yet you keep acting as though "populism" means telling the social movements to fuck off and die or something.  

The common people INCLUDE First Nations people, people of color, LGBTQ people, victims of climate change, and union members, just as much as it includes whoever YOU think it includes.

I have stated that social movements are responsible for all the social advances humanity has made but that doesn't fit with your prejudices.  You exclude everyone who doesn't fit in with your tidy group of the oppressed, the sole people who have a right to self-interest. 

Social movements usually fight for minorities not majorities. Social movements gather support from the population to push governments and political parties to take more progressive positions. 

Political parties fight for the interests of the majority (assuming they want to win an election). 

The right acknowledges people's anger and frustration, gives them a target, and promises to fight it, using plain language. 

The left doesn't give the impression of concern over the worries of two income two car families that own their own home and go on vacation once a year. 

Ken Burch wrote:

josh wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Twain is a bimbo country singer looking to suck up to country fans (all who are right wing)

 

So you're saying that every single person who listens to country is right-wing?

And we're wondering why the left has trouble broadening its support? You're basically saying that it's impossible to be left-wing if you listen to certain types of music.

 

Does that include Tim McGraw, Willie Nelson, the Dixie Cicks, etc.?

Or anyone in the alt-country scene?

 I can name all the neutral or leftist country music people on one hand.

Willie Nelson. Neutral, The Dixie Chicks? Actually it's Natalie Maines. Left. Merle Haggard. Right wing becoming a Democrat later in life.

Now if you're a country fan,chances are you are right wing. If you love NASCAR you are more than likely to be right wing. These are facts,Ken. The artists for the most part are right wing. Except a very small handful.

You bring up the Dixie Chicks. What happened to them when they spoke against George Bush? They were ostracized and became pariahs. Toby Keith wrote a song that he will 'No longer Smoke with Willie'

In country music,once you give a hint of leaning left or god forbid,you criticize the President and/or the government (Unless it's Barack Obama and the Democrats),your career in that genre is OVER.

And yes. Certain genres are heavily right wing and others are heavily left wing. And in the case of Country Music,yes it's heavily right wing. I could right an excellent essay for a humanities test and go into great deal about this subject. And it's just too long to type on this board. Bottom line is,certain genres are right wing and certain genres are left wing. It's a fascinating fact.

Sorry if that offends you. I like facts,not apeasing people who fit a stereotype for the off chance I offend them. It's called reality,Ken. You should really pay attention to different genres of music and where their fans mostly lean. I can name them. If you want a sample,please feel free to ask me.

progressive17 wrote:

If you are reasonably decent at the blues pentatonic on your favorite instrument, drop it 3 semitones to get the country pentatonic. It is quite tasty to start a solo with a country lick and then come back with the blues.

After doing one of my performances of some rock and roll, a senior gentleman asked me if my guitar played country. And as it happens, it did. I was told I sounded like Waylon Jennings, whose music I have never heard in my life.

But if you sing a melody, I can figure out the chords. I don't know if you can do that.

Demonizing a form of music because certain people like it is completely infantile.

Weren't you leaving here?

Infantile. Like your cotton brain?

I can prove it,doiuchebag. It's too much work to post here.

Let's just say Country Music is right wing (IT IS)

Heavy metal is mostly right wing. Maybe 60/40 (which is a conservative number..it's most likely more 70/30)

Classic Rock even 50/50 (I admit this is a hard one.If you keep in mind all the baby boomers those over 50 and 60 years old,there is a sizeable right leaning audience. The number may be more in favour of the right. I picked 50/50 because as I said that's a difficult one)

Progressive rock majority left

Psychedelic rock left leaning

Blue grass mostly right wing

Hardcore punk would be 90/10 The 10% would be skinhead music

Hip hop is mostly left leaning. Some artists come across a little right wing flaunting their money and basically flaunting capitalism.I can't think of a hip hop artist who is a rank right winger. Especially hip hop with social messages such as Tupac and Ice Tea. Do some research,man. It isn't hard to do.

Jazz is also mostly left wing

Etc...

The reason psychedelic rock and progressive rock is mostly left wing is because of hippies. Especially Eurpean hippies who were the real deal. Most American hippies were just following a trend. The rest were really into social justice and anti-war. It's no mystery. Listen to the lyrics and themes. There's your proof.

And so on and so on.

So blow it out your ass.,douchebag

Even if there aren't a lot of left-wing country MUSICIANS(and I agree, they're almost certainly a small minority), there probably are a number of left-wing country fans in the general population. Heck, I'm left-wing, and I enjoy giving the occassional listen to John Denver, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, Tanya Tucker, and even some of the older, more traditional stuff.

The point is, as long as there are people who a) like country music, and b) might be willing to vote for or otherwise support the left from time to time, it's probably NOT a good idea to point your finger at them and say "You're a right-wing douchebag if you like country!!"

A value-free observation on the "honesty" question.

A while ago on Facebook, I saw a "quote"/meme that said something like the following: "Conservatives take Trump seriously but not literally, Liberals take Trump literally but not seriously."

That probably has something to do with why some 50 million people probably agree with Twain, yet another 50 million people think she's nuts.

Quote:

Heck, I'm left-wing, and I enjoy giving the occassional listen to John Denver, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, Tanya Tucker, and even some of the older, more traditional stuff.

Don't take this wrong, but those ARE actually the older, more traditional stuff.

And I think that might be the point of inflection.

But FWIW, I feel sometimes the same way about Hollywood action hero types.  Possible exception:  Harrison Ford.

The biomechanical service units are rebelling! They are voting for Doug Ford! They do not believe him, they do not believe Wynne, they do not believe Horwath, they do not believe me (no one should anyway), and they do not believe you.

However, Doug Ford pisses us off the most, which is exactly why they are voting for him. They know he is going to screw them anyway, but they don't care. "They are all the same anyway, but I sure get a charge looking at you squeal!"

They don't care about anything. They just want to burn it all down. Sack Rome! All those buildings were built by slaves. Reduce them to rubble. Kill anyone who tries to stop us. They want revenge. 

This is unmitigated rage, folks. How are you going to deal with that?

In general terms however, the Conservative Party can always depend on its base of 30%. The other parties cannot depend on 30%. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP. This is true for the Ontario, Canadian and UK Parties. 

In the old days, the calculus was that all three parties had a 20% base, and during the election they would fight over the 40%, and the chips fell as they might have. 

If the Conservatives can get 15% of the vote from the other parties, it is all over in a 3-party system. Indeed, they can get by on 10% for a pretty reliable "mandate". 

If the Liberal vote is passing into losing official party status, you can bet your boots that most of that extra vote for the Conservatives is coming from Liberals. The trope that Ford is getting NDP votes is laughable. Loyal NDPs are staying right where they are. The NDP needs to get Ford votes!

The Liberal Party may call itself "progressive", however their voters certainly do not seem to be. Liberals, as you will find, are the biggest Red-baiters in the business. Liberals are happy to vote for guys like Tom Wappel. Over, and over, and over again. 

Bill Davis ran a minority Conservative government with the NDP abstention. The Liberals were quite happy to position themselves as the only "free enterprise" party in Ontario, well to the right of Davis.

Go out canvassing for any party. You will find all the rich houses are Liberals. But they can go into the apartment buildings of the poor and say, "They will promise you a lot. But we can get you the cheque." So the rich and the poor outvote the middle. And the Liberals win. The Conservatives normally say "Don't bother with apartment buildings. Only go into condos." Which are happy hunting ground for Conservatives. The Conservatives politely go to the rich houses, but they do really well in the small houses, where the NDP also can do well. So the NDP need to go to the apartment buildings, try some condos, and go to the small houses. And keep pounding the pavement. 16 hours a day if necessary. If you don't have what it takes...

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Heck, I'm left-wing, and I enjoy giving the occassional listen to John Denver, Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, Tanya Tucker, and even some of the older, more traditional stuff.

Don't take this wrong, but those ARE actually the older, more traditional stuff.

And I think that might be the point of inflection.

But FWIW, I feel sometimes the same way about Hollywood action hero types.  Possible exception:  Harrison Ford.

Stalone,Seagal,Willis and Schwatzenegger are all right wingers. I don't think Harrison Ford is.

progressive17 wrote:

Carter's record of military operations during is presidency was better than Nixon's and better than Reagan's, and those since. The last really bad US military operation had been in 1972, with a bombing run over Vietnam prior to the peace talks.

When Gerry Ford took over, he airlifted supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur war. From then until the end of his presidency, all of the US military operations were evacuations. Gerry Ford was pretty reasonable, compared the the bloodthirsty monsters before and since.

In the same way, most of Carter's overt military operations were rescue and attempted rescue missions.

However, if Carter was so peaceful, why did he have Zbigniew Brzeznski as his national security advisor? This guy was a hawk to say the least. He made John Bolton look tame. 

If the US is not in some overt war, they are in some covert operation, or fighting wars by proxy. Conveniently, those do not have to be listed as "American military operations".

In the background of all of this was the Cold War, and everything which went along with that. The US and Soviet empires used the whole world as their battlefield, fighting wars by proxy on almost every continent.

I will admit that Carter was better than most. But he was still an American president, which makes me seriously doubt whether he was a good guy.

Fair enough.

@ #79

Insofar, though, as we are talking about the ideological orientation of the voters, it's probably safe to say that many if not most of the people who voted for Carter did so because they wanted more left-wing policies, and were unaware as to what he was actually doing. Maybe moreso in his second election, because in '76 he carried the South based partly on his evangelical religious identity, whereas that bloc had deserted him by 1980, with the Republicans running a blatantly right-wing candidate who was likely freaking out liberals.

There's an interview between William F. Buckley and Brzezinski on You Tube, and Buckley tries to take Brz. to task for supposedly being soft-on-Communism, using Carter's famous "We don't need to fear Communism" quote as Exhibit A. Brz. all but claims authorship of the phrase, and says that what he meant was that while Communism was still a military threat to the USA, it wasn't a political threat, because very few countries were interested in adopting it anymore.

Which might have been the meaning of the phrase, but it probably also did double-duty as a dog-whistle to antiwar voters who wanted a less confrontational foreign-policy, and weren't going to pay much attention to any of the actual policies after the election.

And for a contemporary example of this sort of thing, look at our own PM right now. I really doubt Trudeau is going to lose many environmentalist votes as a result of his pro-pipeline policies, because all that really matters to them is that he talks a good game on eco-issues.   

VOTD:  There's no shortage of people in my social circle and extended family who have said similar things, and said them back when Rob was still among the living as well.

Profressive17: re post 75 - Well said, and glad to see you back to your old form.  

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Yes well it's unfortunate that the left refuses to be populist.

Wrong.

It is just that they are often not that good at it. Maybe they are out classed by the right who can afford the social psychologists to make a better campaign on it -- even if it is false.

But Layton was definitely a populist So was Barrett, Douglas and others.

So was Trudeau even if he was full of shit, lying, and an elite himself running for an elitist, establishment party. What did you think all that shit about middle class was? It had nothing to do with actual policy intentions (a tax cut for the upper income earners at the cost of the very top income earners and ultimately, those from above the middle down). It was an appeal to populism that was a lie -- like most of them are.

Yes, Ford is also a populist. Full of shit like most of them. They would like nothing better than to have you think all populists are full of shit so that they won't have to make the pretence and a sincere one would never get elected.

I mean genuinely populist not full of shit populist. 

Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite.[1] Critics of populism have described it as a political approach that seeks to disrupt the existing social order by solidifying and mobilizing the animosity of the "commoner" or "the people" against "privileged elites" and the "establishment".[2] Populists can fall anywhere on the traditional left–right political spectrum of politics and often portray both bourgeois capitalists and socialist organizers as unfairly dominating the political sphere.[3]

Political parties and politicians[4] often use the terms "populist" and "populism" as pejoratives against their opponents. Such a view sees populism as demagogy, merely appearing to empathize with the public through rhetoric or unrealistic proposals in order to increase appeal across the political spectrum.[5]

Do we need a meta-thrad on the issues with Wiki? Particularly quoating parts of wiki without reference?

This is from the same wiki a little further down:

In recent years, academic scholars have produced definitions that facilitate populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".

The distinction here is whether populism has to be a movement intending to make a positive difference for the people (a requirement of sincerity) or a political approach designed to create division with the stated objective of doing so -- real or otherwise. I argue that the definition of populism does not pertain to a specific ideology or real objective but to this pitting of a mass of people against an adverserial group deemed to have advantage. It is the claim of representing the ordinary people that distininguishes populism rather than the sincerity. This is a common language definition of populism that is much closer to accepted examples.

It is a point of fact that many who are widely characterized as populist have no documentable intention that supports anything other than the conflict against another group. Quite often they are merely expressions for anger against a group of elites without anything concrete to improve the lot of anyone.

Dictionary definitions focus on the claim more than the reality: Webster: "a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people..."

Now when you look at political definitions there are few that focus on appearance over objective purpose -- Populism is an outlier here.

Here is another description of populism:

https://www.firstpost.com/living/philosopher-akeel-bilgrami-on-populism-...

Key word: approach -- and here you see the focus on what it opposes rather than what it offers.

Here is another : http://thedailyidea.org/what-is-populism/

"Populism is a political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against a privileged elite. Critics of populism have described it as "a political approach that seeks to disrupt the existing social order by solidifying and mobilizing the animosity of the "commoner" or "the people" against "privileged elites" and the "establishment". Populists can fall anywhere on the traditional left–right political spectrum of politics and often portray both bourgeois capitalists and socialist organizers as unfairly dominating the political sphere."

Again you see it is the marshalling of an anger within a mass of people against a system deemed unfair and others deemed at advantage. The movement seeks to defne those.

This is the reason it can be left or right or sincere or baloney.  It is not really a political ideology as it does not seek a particular vision other than the conflict for the purpose of delivering support to the presenter.

A socialist populist is one with a socialist vision using the political approach of a populist. A right wing populist is using the same approach to a different ideology -- this it is not an ideology per se.

At least Carter tells it likes it is. Unlike the other 4 living Presidents.

https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/jimmy-carter-u-s-oligarchy-unlimited...

An old story but between his brutal honesty and Habitat For Humanity,he still proves to be a great President.

It was his brother Billy who was the real laughing stock. I wonder what happened to Billy Beer?

Quote:

An old story but between his brutal honesty and Habitat For Humanity,he still proves to be a great President.

FWIW, it seems that a part of his former "plantation" is now a solar farm, serving Plains, GA.

I always kind of liked Carter, but that may be partly because he he was the first POTUS I really had any awareness of.  Technically I was alive for Johnson, Nixon and Ford, too, but they weren't really on my radar.

Quote:

I wonder what happened to Billy Beer?

If you've got a six-pack in the cellar, it's a mad collectible.

Why can't Trump have a loser brother dragging him down?  "Billy Trump", Sears suit wearing Assistant-Vice Sales Representative for Amway, and entrepreneur responsible for "Mar-a-lager" craft beer?

Donald Trump does not need any other family member to be embarrassed by. By his own virtues, he is an embarrassment to the world.

Ken Burch wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I also wonder what kind of working conditions there were in Jimmy Carter's peanut plantation in Georgia.

I heard that the slaves were permitted to sing songs on every other Sunday, and they could keep all the moldy goobers they could shuck.

I think we call them "farms" in the modern era, though.

Anyway, You People Made Me Give Up My Peanut Farm Before I Got To Be President.

I seriously doubt that poster was accusing Carter of being a slave owner.  They were just using the term plantation as a euphemism for "farm". 

That would be the opposite of a euphemism, wouldn't it? "Plantation" carries negative, slavery-related implications that "farm" doesn't.

Anyway, it's a legit question as to how Carter might treat his workers, though if he divested himself of the farm before taking office, it's a moot point.

If you are looking for personal dirt on Carter, I know his mother was quite blatantly racist, once used the N-word to complain about blacks trying to attend her church. We can probably assume Jimmy himself shared such views for at least part of his life.

And, based on that movie about Larry Flynt, Ruth Stapleton Carter was pretty weird, even by the standards of faith-healers.

Quote:

They were just using the term plantation as a euphemism for "farm".

The way we say "Plantations feed cities" and "the Wheat Board protects the interest of plantation owners"?

You don't have to agree, but I think the word plantation was chosen over the much more obvious and common "farm" for a reason.

The first president I was aware of was John F. Kennedy, on the day he was killed. I was 5.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I remember when Reagan was 'allegedly'  shot.

Unless you're channelling Paul Craig Roberts, he was actually shot.  Obviously not lethally, though.  And he didn't walk to the hospital, he walked out of the presidential limo that carried him to the hospital rather than waiting for a stretcher.

Where did I say he walked to the hospital. Of course I could have misspoke. But yeah,he walked into the hospital as the story goes. The story and incident shot his poll numbers up over night.

I don't trust the Republicns..They are sneaks,thieves and liars. As i mentioned in another thread about Jimmy Carter,it is now fully known that the Republicans had a secret deal with Iran so the hostages were not released when Carter was President. They manipulated their populace. And they've been doing that since Nixon.

If their true face were to be recognized by the public (and they hide less and less behind any facade as time goes on) they'd be an extinct party. 

Quote:

Where did I say he walked to the hospital. Of course I could have misspoke. But yeah,he walked into the hospital as the story goes.

What if we just agree that he probably did walk the last 40 feet?

But can you flesh out what you mean by "allegedly" shot?

Was he not shot?

Was he shot, but it was only an "alleged" bullet?  Or what's that story?