There have been rumblings for some time now that a new populist political party unconnected with the current federal political parties is being explored on the Canadian scene. If it happens my hunch is that there will be a connection between them and the right wing Canadian Taxpayers Association
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/07/05/Canadian-Taxpayers-Federation-Get/
SMH, Has the word populist been abused and misused.
SMH, Has the word populist been abused and misused.
In a way -- but as I understand populism it is defined as those claiming to represent the interests of the people. Perhaps those that really do represent those interests would not be defined as much by what they claim as by what they actually do.
You have a point josh
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-43301423
dp
In a way -- but as I understand populism it is defined as those claiming to represent the interests of the people.
So, as unambiguous as "progressive" or "patriot" or "hero".
There have been rumblings for some time now that a new populist political party unconnected with the current federal political parties is being explored on the Canadian scene.
I think I saw that movie before around 1990. The Canadian Right has well learned the lesson of what happened after that, and continues to work against the possibility of a sequel. See Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney, and also see Doug Ford.
In a way -- but as I understand populism it is defined as those claiming to represent the interests of the people.So, as unambiguous as "progressive" or "patriot" or "hero".
Not at all. Those three words (used accurately or not) are meant to describe substance. Populism is meant to describe how the political entity (person or party) appeals. Populism as a concept has little to do with substance and more to do with what they pupport to be -- by definition.
The other words are misused when they cover only appearances, even if they are misused frequently.
