Sanders wins Iowa

[_EAllusion]

Pretty sure "right-leaning authoritarian" had you covered, EAllusion. The author used populist to describe - rightly - a common characteristic of both Sanders and Trump's appeal to people on both ends of the political spectrum. Or do you mean that Sanders is also a fascist now?

The author went with "right-leaning authoritarian populist" vs. "democratic socialist."

Trump isn't a populist in the sense that got him that moniker at one point. This, however, is the preferred term used in the American press when wanting to refer to his fascist-like traits. That's what makes sense in this context.

It is true that the author is writing a lament about the weakening of the party system to elect establishment types and refers to the contrary as "populism" but that's a misunderstanding of the other sense of populism and not really coherent in the sentence I am referring to. This is the author borrowing from the conventional descriptive political labels for Trump that very much uses populism as a softer term to refer to fascist traits.

Sanders and Trump both use populism (one more authentic than the other) in the sense of "anti-elitist rabble rousing," but the author is not presenting that as a seemingly extreme choice. Anti-elitist rabble rousing is a common feature of various American political movements over the years. The despair the author presents in the choice between socialism and fascism. That's what the author is going for in that line. It's trying to draw a comparison between unacceptable fringes.

[_EAllusion]

It is true, though, that if Sanders wins the nomination your choice is going to be between a fascist and a Scandinavian-style socialist. If you (meaning anyone) consider that a tough choice, fix your brain, but that does cut out a lot of middle-ground that exists on the American political spectrum.

[_EAllusion]

One tell that occurs to me is that once you cut out the economic populism of 2016 campaign Trump, he is only a populist in the sense the Republican Party has largely been since before I was legally allowed to vote. He trades in conservative anti-elitist rhetoric while actually being a hardcore elitist, but that’s par for the course, not some new development. So why treat it like it is? Why wasn’t the Republican Party thought of as populist years ago?

What happened is that Trump picked up the label populist from people who know what they are talking about back when he was campaigning as a quasi-populist. This compared to European far right movements that combine economic populism with fascist tendencies. The label stuck and populism became a way for press to talk about fascism without ruffling feathers or feeling like they are editorializing. It is the “enhanced interrogation” of its time. But aside from trade protectionism, Trump dropped the economic populism and went hard in the other direction. So this euphemistic language gets increasingly awkward.

[_EAllusion]

Pete Buttigeig is trying to run on a “salt of the earth, man of the people vs. Washington insiders” rhetorical pose and exactly zero news outlets are describing him as the populist candidate. That’s because that word is now the preferred way of talking about fascists if you draw a check from NPR, USA Today, etc.

[_honorentheos]

Again, the author of the article was drawing parallels between Trump supporters and Bernie supporters who feel disenfranchised from the establishment -

Sanders, in other words, is using the party establishment's disunity as a vehicle for mounting an insurgent campaign. In an era in which Democratic leadership can't seem to decide who—or what—to support, Sanders is stepping in and offering to fill the void by appealing to a vocal part of the Democratic coalition that has often felt left out of the party's mainstream.


For Trump, that meant rallying older, working-class populists angry with the nation's political and cultural elite. For Sanders, it means activating a different sort of populist coalition, one that is younger and more diverse, but similarly distrustful of elite power as it currently exists. Their coalitions are not the same, but the messages both candidates use to reach those coalitions have more than a little overlap: The people in power aren't looking out for your interests or your values; as president, I'll punish them—and help you.

There are other similarities between the candidates as well: Their relatively advanced ages, their fondness for foreign authoritarians, their lack of interest in the difficult particulars of federal budgeting—and, perhaps most of all, their desire to break and then remake America's major political parties in their own image.

Pretty straight forward use of populist. But here's a shoehorn for you because Trump support reduces to racism and Trump's behavior reduces to fascism so really stretch the heel to make sure you fit that in here I guess...

[_EAllusion]

Again, the author of the article was drawing parallels between Trump supporters and Bernie supporters who feel disenfranchised from the establishment -

Yes, the author is. Running against the Washington establishment has been a popular strategy for a very long time because the public has disliked the establishment for a while. So, the author is naïve about how much this type of "populism" exists in mainstream political messaging for years. Big deal, right? But when the author wants to cap this off by lamenting we are going to be left two extreme choices, the author switches into describing Trump as a "right-leaning authoritarian populist" in the sense the press uses it to describe him as a fascist. That label is supposed to sound extreme to communicate to the reader that these are two extreme choices. It's a conflation.

Try this experiment. Every Republican Presidential candidate since at least the turn of the century is a populist in the former sense even though no one was calling them populists. Plug their name into that sentence and see if it works.

[_subgenius]

Don't know if anyone's acknowledged this. Yang pulled out completely.

pulling out partially is useless.

[_subgenius]

LOCK HER UP!


That reminds me, how are the investigations into Clinton going?

Not well if you liked the chant.

politically speaking she is already serving hard time.

[_honorentheos]

Again, the author of the article was drawing parallels between Trump supporters and Bernie supporters who feel disenfranchised from the establishment -

Yes, the author is. Running against the Washington establishment has been a popular strategy for a very long time because the public has disliked the establishment for a while. So, the author is naïve about how much this type of "populism" exists in mainstream political messaging for years. Big deal, right? But when the author wants to cap this off by lamenting we are going to be left two extreme choices, the author switches into describing Trump as a "right-leaning authoritarian populist" in the sense the press uses it to describe him as a fascist. That label is supposed to sound extreme to communicate to the reader that these are two extreme choices. It's a conflation.

Try this experiment. Every Republican Presidential candidate since at least the turn of the century is a populist in the former sense even though no one was calling them populists. Plug their name into that sentence and see if it works.

So the author is naïve if using populist in a conventional way or deceptive if using it as a euphemism for fascist. Either way, the correct thing to do is understand what we are supposed to be discussing here is that Trump is a fascist, the media is complicit in the downfall of democracy, and ...why is Bernie in this again? Oh, the OP.

Ever notice how many people can't engage in conversations without reverting to hobby horse meta narratives? Given the right-wing media has been the most blatant purveyor of this with the resulting destruction of civil public discourse one would think someone concerned with the state of the Republic would behave more conscientiously to avoid doing so themselves. But it seems meta narratives are taking over on both sides now.

Subject: The United States recently agreed to sell arms to Saudi Arabia that will be used in Yemen

Ajax: Because we need jobs that aren't stolen by illegal immigrants forcing down wages and ruining America.

Subbie: Trump selling weapons to MBS gets liberals panties in a bunch so they are distracted from Trump pwning them by shutting down the EPA.

Markk: Trump's a bad guy, personally, but he's doing things and has a plan, which is more than liberals can say they have.

QAnon follower: This is actually a ploy by Trump to get members of the deep state to reveal themselves so he can further drain the swamp.

EA: This is just another example of the media getting distracted from how Trump is doing worse things domestically because they are trying to be moderate even as he shifts the lines so far right the middle is now about even with Richard Nixon's views.

[_EAllusion]

So the author is naïve if using populist in a conventional way...

Yes and no. The problem here is that few people were using the word "populist" like this outside of academic circles until the 2016 election when it became popular to start calling Trump a populist. Trump was campaigning as a populist - sort of - in an economic sense along with the cultural sense in a way that is reminiscent of right-wing populism in Europe, so it makes sense why the term initially stuck. But then it sort of took a life on its own and became a way to talk about fascist tendencies in Trumpism without having to use that word. This continued even as Trump dropped the economic populism and it became increasingly weird.

If someone wants to go back and talk about Trump's populism in the sense of conservative anti-elitism that has been a feature of conservative politics for a long-time preceding Trump, that's not technically wrong, but it is naïve to think Trump is an aberration in this regard. Where it goes off the rails is when a person tries to talk about Trump's populism in this sense, but then also trades on Trump's "populism" in the sense the media uses it as a softer term for fascism. That's what happens here, because you start out with populism in this trite sense of anti-establishment politics that are cliché' at this point, then then it barrel rolls into describing an extreme choice between a right authoritarian populism and democratic socialism. The author's point either is wrong is misleading by then.