Rush Limbaugh dead!

[Starstrike]

But they aren't populists. Bernie is closest, I'd say, but he really isn't populist.

Oh look, another No True Scottsman fallacy. Bernie isn't 'really' populist? Oh really? And what objective criteria do you base this on? Bernie fulfills both criteria of populism: 1) popular support among the working class and 2) anti-establishment rhetoric.

As for Ardern, she too has popular support among the working class, she may not have used anti-establishment rhetoric simply because New Zealand's establishment is already politically aligned with the leanings of the masses. I made that clear already.

@Paola.Valentina "Imagine thinking getting a majority vote makes you a populist." <----That's not what I said, reductionism is the tactic of the ignorant. Popular support among regular people (the working class) specifically.

 

[Vera.Reis]

Oh look, another No True Scottsman fallacy. Bernie isn't 'really' populist? Oh really? And what objective criteria do you base this on? Bernie fulfills both criteria of populism: 1) popular support among the working class and 2) anti-establishment rhetoric.

As for Ardern, she too has popular support among the working class, she may not have used anti-establishment rhetoric simply because New Zealand's establishment is already politically aligned with the leanings of the masses. I made that clear already.

@Paola.Valentina "Imagine thinking getting a majority vote makes you a populist." <----That's not what I said, reductionism is the tactic of the ignorant. Popular support among regular people (the working class) specifically.

You're wrong my dude, get over it. Populism has NOTHING to do with popular support. Maxime Bernier is a populist.

Populism requires us vs them rhetoric and manufactured or exaggerated crisis to push the us vs them. This is why it often goes nationalist bcz it us vs the global elite or us vs immigrants.

For the love of all that is intellectual and holy, stop using no true Scotsman wrong!!!!!! It is the opposite of what you think, it is a no x does y, argument that when given an example that in face x sometimes does y the person doubles down with no x does y. Saying Bernie isn't a populist bcz he doesn't fit the criteria is not a no true Scotsman argument.

 

[Starstrike]

You're wrong my dude, get over it. Populism has NOTHING to do with popular support. Maxime Bernier is a populist.

Populism requires us vs them rhetoric and manufactured or exaggerated crisis to push the us vs them. This is why it often goes nationalist bcz it us vs the global elite or us vs immigrants.

For the love of all that is intellectual and holy, stop using no true Scotsman wrong!!!!!! It is the opposite of what you think, it is a no x does y, argument that when given an example that in face x sometimes does y the person doubles down with no x does y. Saying Bernie isn't a populist bcz he doesn't fit the criteria is not a no true Scotsman argument.

Except I'm not. Populism DOES have to do with popular support among the working class specifically. Maxime Bernier is a demagogue.

"us vs them" rhetoric is part of every political campaign, Democrats VS Republicans, Liberals VS CPC etc. What you mean to say is that it requires anti-establishment rhetoric. That is one element of populism yes, the other is support among the working class specifically. For instance, if a candidate in a far Left country uses anti-establishment rhetoric but only appeals to the rich and powerful, they have not fulfilled both conditions of populism, only one. Are they still a populist? I'd say not because the primary element of populism is a message that resonates with the majority (working class) population. Hence the name "populism" because it comes from the idea of appealing to popular support (regular working class people) in the face of an adversarial establishment.

Your last paragraph is incoherent. Saying Bernie isn't "really" a populist without explaining what element of the definition of populism he falls short of is INDEED a No True Scottsman fallacy.

 

[Starstrike]

Populism requires us vs them rhetoric and manufactured or exaggerated crisis to push the us vs them. This is why it often goes nationalist bcz it us vs the global elite or us vs immigrants.

I'm going to focus on this statement in particular, because this is where you repeatedly conflate populism with demagoguery and display your lack of knowledge.

Populism does NOT require manufactured or exaggerated crisis as part of the anti-establishment rhetoric. That is only present in demagoguery - a specific type of populism that is disingenuous - and is packaged with misplaced blame, such as blaming immigrants for lower wages when in fact it's because of corporate greed. This is what the likes of Donald Trump do.

By contrast, Bernie Sanders addresses the ROOT causes of these systemic issues, blaming it on lobbyists that rig the system and corporate greed, not immigrants. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are both populists because they both use anti-establishment rhetoric and appeal to working class people. However, only Donald Trump is a demagogue because he misplaces the blame and does not address the root causes.

Your understanding of populism is shallow and flawed, because you think that a populist message is inherently demagoguery when that is blatantly false.

This is why I tell you get your money back, because you don't know what you're talking about. Now go look up the definition of No True Scottsman fallacy while you're at it.

 

[Vera.Reis]

There comes a time that someone is so delusional in their belief of their knowledge that you just need to stop engaging, this is that time for me, you're delusional, I suggest educating yourself before spewing so many inaccuracies.

 

[Starstrike]

There comes a time that someone is so delusional in their belief of their knowledge that you just need to stop engaging, this is that time for me, you're delusional, I suggest educating yourself before spewing so many inaccuracies.

LOL! That's rich! Take your own advice. Learn basic definitions before even attempting such a discussion.

 

[Vera.Reis]

LOL! That's rich! Take your own advice. Learn basic definitions before even attempting such a discussion.

You're the one who has gotten the definitions wrong, several people have disagreed with you.

 

[Starstrike]

You're the one who has gotten the definitions wrong, several people have disagreed with you.

And yet neither you or them have presented any actual rebuttal. Imagine thinking you're right because a couple of horny simps are vying for your attention on a prostitute board.

 

[Starstrike]

You're the one who has gotten the definitions wrong, several people have disagreed with you.

Fact is, you can't even keep your own thoughts straight: "Not all populism is bad, we often need it to hold politicians accountable, but the populist rhetoric we see, whether left wing or right wing, is nearly always anti-democratic and borderline, if not fully, facist."

Followed by: "Populism requires us vs them rhetoric and manufactured or exaggerated crisis to push the us vs them. This is why it often goes nationalist bcz it us vs the global elite or us vs immigrants."

If populism requires a manufactured and/or exaggerated crisis to push an "us vs them" narrative, isn't it by definition ALWAYS bad?

Answer your own contradictions before even attempting school me.

 

[Vera.Reis]

Fact is, you can't even keep your own thoughts straight: "Not all populism is bad, we often need it to hold politicians accountable, but the populist rhetoric we see, whether left wing or right wing, is nearly always anti-democratic and borderline, if not fully, facist."

Followed by: "Populism requires us vs them rhetoric and manufactured or exaggerated crisis to push the us vs them. This is why it often goes nationalist bcz it us vs the global elite or us vs immigrants."

If populism requires a manufactured and/or exaggerated crisis to push an "us vs them" narrative, isn't it by definition ALWAYS bad?

Answer your own contradictions before even attempting school me.

You're an idiot. If you want me to engage further with your drivel and illogical reasoning it will be $400/hr.

 

[Starstrike]

You're an idiot. If you want me to engage further with your drivel and illogical reasoning it will be $400/hr.

Now you're getting all emotional and calling me names because you know I'm right but have to pretend otherwise to protect your fragile ego and the notion that the degree you can't shut up about wasn't wasted. Yes, yes, run along now. That's what happens when people get cornered on their BS.

 

[Valcazar]

There comes a time that someone is so delusional in their belief of their knowledge that you just need to stop engaging, this is that time for me, you're delusional, I suggest educating yourself before spewing so many inaccuracies.

You're right to stop engaging, but I will defend the delusion a bit. He has his own definitions of populism and demagogue. They aren't the standard ones you and I are using, but they are internally consistent. They serve his purpose for what he is discussing. You know as well as I that fighting over contested definitions is often pointless and frustrating even when it is in an agreed framework like an academic discussion. In a situation like this, it isn't going to go anywhere useful at all.

In another forum, maybe there could be an interesting discussion of what is useful or not about the definition he's using and in what context. But since the entire discussion is just barely related to the original topic of the thread (Rush Limbaugh) it isn't worth putting up with SS's weird hyper-aggression about it.

 

[Starstrike]

You're right to stop engaging, but I will defend the delusion a bit. He has his own definitions of populism and demagogue. They aren't the standard ones you and I are using, but they are internally consistent. They serve his purpose for what he is discussing. You know as well as I that fighting over contested definitions is often pointless and frustrating even when it is in an agreed framework like an academic discussion. In a situation like this, it isn't going to go anywhere useful at all.

In another forum, maybe there could be an interesting discussion of what is useful or not about the definition he's using and in what context. But since the entire discussion is just barely related to the original topic of the thread (Rush Limbaugh) it isn't worth putting up with SS's weird hyper-aggression about it.

lol, they're not 'my own' definitions, these are the standard definitions that can be verified with a simple google search.

 

[Vera.Reis]

lol, they're not 'my own' definitions, these are the standard definitions that can be verified with a simple google search.

You're right to stop engaging, but I will defend the delusion a bit. He has his own definitions of populism and demagogue. They aren't the standard ones you and I are using, but they are internally consistent. They serve his purpose for what he is discussing. You know as well as I that fighting over contested definitions is often pointless and frustrating even when it is in an agreed framework like an academic discussion. In a situation like this, it isn't going to go anywhere useful at all.

In another forum, maybe there could be an interesting discussion of what is useful or not about the definition he's using and in what context. But since the entire discussion is just barely related to the original topic of the thread (Rush Limbaugh) it isn't worth putting up with SS's weird hyper-aggression about it.

You're not wrong, it is just really frustrating. Apparently google is his source so that just speaks volumes and makes me think about that saying of arguing with an idiot. Given that this is a topic I've written several papers on it is just mildly infuriating because his definitions are not even ones that are advanced in the standard literature on the subject. But it is what it is and there is no reasoning with certain types.

 

[Valcazar]

You're not wrong, it is just really frustrating. Apparently google is his source so that just speaks volumes and makes me think about that saying of arguing with an idiot. Given that this is a topic I've written several papers on it is just mildly infuriating because his definitions are not even ones that are advanced in the standard literature on the subject. But it is what it is and there is no reasoning with certain types.

Given Google is his source, I think it speaks to a contested definition in the political space. Defining "Good Populism" from "Bad Demagoguery" has probably become really important to a certain subset of political actors, because they want to create distance between two positions they don't think should be conflated. It's not ridiculous, since "populism" will get used as an attack line against them, they can either deny it completely or try and jiujitsu it in this way to control the meaning themselves. (I remember the great debate over whether or not to abandon the word "liberal" and adopt "progressive" which has now resulted in multiple factions using the terms in slightly different ways.). The real question is whether this split is being used as a bulwark against or as cover for the people like Butler1000 who use "populist" as a way of uniting left and right and want to go the brown-red alliance. It's almost impossible to tell and I suspect it is being used by both groups - which just muddies the water further.

 

[squeezer]

You're an idiot. If you want me to engage further with your drivel and illogical reasoning it will be $400/hr.

I've been meaning to post that you two really need to get a room and hash this out! You beat me to it! LMFAO

 

[K Douglas]

Populism requires an us vs them narrative, usually it is us the people vs the elite, but there is also the us the real people of this country vs the outsiders. Populism also requires either the manufacturing or exaggeration of a crisis. Populism requires that the politician represents themselves as the ONLY option to solve whatever crisis they are creating or exaggerating. Orban in Hungary, Brexit supporters, Trump like to use an over exaggerated threat caused by immigrants.

The people you mentioned do not use these tactics.

"Populism requires the manufacturing or exaggeration of a crisis"
I don't agree with this statement at all. Populist movements are organic and the direct result of a broken, flawed or corrupt system. If you have a bit of time watch this Munk debate between Steve Bannon and former Bush speech writer David Frum.

 

[shack]

Palm Beach County refuses to lower flags for Rush Limbaugh (msn.com)

 

[Vera.Reis]

Given Google is his source, I think it speaks to a contested definition in the political space. Defining "Good Populism" from "Bad Demagoguery" has probably become really important to a certain subset of political actors, because they want to create distance between two positions they don't think should be conflated. It's not ridiculous, since "populism" will get used as an attack line against them, they can either deny it completely or try and jiujitsu it in this way to control the meaning themselves. (I remember the great debate over whether or not to abandon the word "liberal" and adopt "progressive" which has now resulted in multiple factions using the terms in slightly different ways.). The real question is whether this split is being used as a bulwark against or as cover for the people like Butler1000 who use "populist" as a way of uniting left and right and want to go the brown-red alliance. It's almost impossible to tell and I suspect it is being used by both groups - which just muddies the water further.

I mean, what happens in the political space and what happens in political science often do not align, that doesn't mean that one definition doesn't have more value or accuracy simply because of the source. Google can call ketchup spicy, it does not make it so.

Populist and Demagogue are labels very few people give themselves, because neither are usually a good thing. Demagogue and populist are not to be conflated, they aren't even in the same category of definitions. Populism is an ideology, demagoguery is a rhetorical style. The type of rhetoric most populists use incorporates some demagoguery. Demagoguery does not require an appeal to us the people vs whoever, demagoguery can be used it regards to climate issues, or anything else that rattles peoples emotions without pointing to elites or some other specific "other" as the cause. Demagoguery is only verbal, it is rhetorical, populism being an ideology can be written. These are obvious very surface issues, but a whole thesis could be written on this.

 

[Vera.Reis]

"Populism requires the manufacturing or exaggeration of a crisis"
I don't agree with this statement at all. Populist movements are organic and the direct result of a broken, flawed or corrupt system. If you have a bit of time watch this Munk debate between Steve Bannon and former Bush speech writer David Frum.

Neither of these people are political scientists so I don't really care about their definitions, Bermeo and the other political scientist whos name I can't recall but starts with a P, whos articles I shared explain the link between populism and crisis, I believe Bermeo takes the manufactured stance and the other person takes the exaggerated stance, either way, exploiting a crisis is part of their definition of populism. Bermeo is a very well respected expert in the field.