Huge Win for Biden Today

[honorentheos]

Oh? The PoliSci and sociological view of populism is it lacks meaningful ideological identity. A "thin ideology" if you will.

Oh, well then. If it is not meaningful then you have nothing to worry about. It it like the 14th season of American Idol. Nobody cares but the contestants and their moms.

And now we are back to it being extreme as it's only form. Lacking inherent reasons for positive existence and purposeful achievement, populism exists as a means of radicalizing disenfranchised people. Else why take on the label of populist?

[Cultellus]

Oh, well then. If it is not meaningful then you have nothing to worry about. It it like the 14th season of American Idol. Nobody cares but the contestants and their moms.

And now we are back to it being extreme as it's only form. Lacking inherent reasons for being and purposeful achievement, populism exists as a means of radicalizing disenfranchised people. Else why take on the label of populist?

No, we are not.

But you go on. I hope you continue making this point for many many many years to come. I think it is important for people to see you saying this, and for people to see others like you saying it. I think it is the MOST important part of the political dialogue right now. You hate people. You think that if they are not like you, they are just radicalized anti-something. I hope you get a bumper sticker that advertises your disdain for everyday people who are not like you.

There are lots of reasons to be a populist and to align with them. Riding in cars or subways without you may be one of them. After all, if you really believe this, you must despise Tulsi Gabbard with every ounce of the fibers in your being. And, damn do I hope you advertise that. Just damn. DO IT!

[honorentheos]

And now we are back to it being extreme as it's only form. Lacking inherent reasons for being and purposeful achievement, populism exists as a means of radicalizing disenfranchised people. Else why take on the label of populist?

No, we are not.

Oh, you've come up with a positive aim of populism between posts but are waiting to share it now?

Let's remind ourselves of what started this six page ballooning of the thread:

Did they place politics over America? That seems so Republican. This infrastructure repair is badly needed.

They are the Democrat equivalent of the Tea Party. Extreme progressives from safely Democrat districts whose views are not broadly reflective of the party but whose media presentation has the ability to steer the car into the railing. I genuinely believe conservative talking heads who give this group outsized coverage are attempting to create the progressive monster in reality they claim is threatening the country.

But yeah they put politics first. The infrastructure bill was the product of bipartisan negotiations. Naturally, extremists on both sides weren't happy with the results. The $3.5T version of the Build Back Better bill became the place where many of the measures landed that more progressive politicians wanted in the infrastructure bill. Demanding both bills be voted on together was cheap politics that hurt the Biden Admin, frankly.

Extreme progressives aren't good for the country any more than extreme conservatives are. Nor extreme populists, which, let's be fair, is a tautology.

[Gadianton]

Everything about America already is supposed to be about the people, in a way where the people have a say (as opposed to communism).

To have a "populist" party is redundant, since America is already in theory for the people.

It only makes sense to have a populist party if there is a problem with the establishment that is preventing the regular guy from making an adequate life for himself, contra theoretical America.

It would be a real problem for the regular guy, however, if the establishment getting railed against isn't guilty of anything the populist party indicts it for. For instance, a populist party circulating misinformation about a virus and vaccines isn't helping the regular guy.

[canpakes]

If, they are advocating for something like an honest and competitive wage, …

That’s great. How about some practical details?


Anyhow, this is interesting-

Frederick Jackson Turner and a succession of western historians depicted the Populist as responding to the closure of the frontier. Turner wrote:

The Farmers' Alliance and the Populist demand for government ownership of the railroad is a phase of the same effort of the pioneer farmer, on his latest frontier. The proposals have taken increasing proportions in each region of Western Advance. Taken as a whole, Populism is a manifestation of the old pioneer ideals of the native American, with the added element of increasing readiness to utilize the national government to effect its ends.

The most influential Turner student of Populism was John D. Hicks, who emphasized economic pragmatism over ideals, presenting Populism as interest group politics, with have-nots demanding their fair share of America's wealth which was being leeched off by nonproductive speculators. Hicks emphasized the drought that ruined so many Kansas farmers, but also pointed to financial manipulations, deflation in prices caused by the gold standard, high interest rates, mortgage foreclosures, and high railroad rates. Corruption accounted for such outrages and Populists presented popular control of government as the solution, a point that later students of republicanism emphasized.[88] In the 1930s, C. Vann Woodward stressed the southern base, seeing the possibility of a black-and-white coalition of poor against the overbearing rich.

In the 1950s, scholars such as Richard Hofstadter portrayed the Populist movement as an irrational response of backward-looking farmers to the challenges of modernity. Though Hofstadter wrote that the Populists were the "first modern political movement of practical importance in the United States to insist that the federal government had some responsibility for the common weal", he criticized the movement as anti-Semitic, conspiracy-minded, nativist, and grievance-based. According to Hofstadter, the antithesis of anti-modern Populism was the modernizing nature of Progressivism. Hofstadter noted that leading progressives like Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette Sr., George Norris and Woodrow Wilson were vehement enemies of Populism, though Bryan cooperated with them and accepted the Populist nomination in 1896. Reichley (1992) sees the Populist Party primarily as a reaction to the decline of the political hegemony of white Protestant farmers; the share of farmers in the workforce had fallen from about 70% in the early 1830s to about 33% in the 1890s. Reichley argues that, while the Populist Party was founded in reaction to economic hardship, by the mid-1890s it was "reacting not simply against the money power but against the whole world of cities and alien customs and loose living they felt was challenging the agrarian way of life."

[Cultellus]

Everything about America already is supposed to be about the people, in a way where the people have a say (as opposed to communism).

To have a "populist" party is redundant, since America is already in theory for the people.

It only makes sense to have a populist party if there is a problem with the establishment that is preventing the regular guy from making an adequate life for himself, contra theoretical America.

It would be a real problem for the regular guy, however, if the establishment getting railed against isn't guilty of anything the populist party indicts it for. For instance, a populist party circulating misinformation about a virus and vaccines isn't helping the regular guy.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!

My work is done here.

Thank you!!!!!!

[Marcus]

Everything about America already is supposed to be about the people, in a way where the people have a say (as opposed to communism).

To have a "populist" party is redundant, since America is already in theory for the people.

It only makes sense to have a populist party if there is a problem with the establishment that is preventing the regular guy from making an adequate life for himself, contra theoretical America.

It would be a real problem for the regular guy, however, if the establishment getting railed against isn't guilty of anything the populist party indicts it for. For instance, a populist party circulating misinformation about a virus and vaccines isn't helping the regular guy.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!

My work is done here.

Thank you!!!!!!

You are having trouble making an adequate life for yourself? Is that the reason for your bizarre posts? You failed in life and want to irrationally blame someone?

[honorentheos]

Everything about America already is supposed to be about the people, in a way where the people have a say (as opposed to communism).

To have a "populist" party is redundant, since America is already in theory for the people.

It only makes sense to have a populist party if there is a problem with the establishment that is preventing the regular guy from making an adequate life for himself, contra theoretical America.

It would be a real problem for the regular guy, however, if the establishment getting railed against isn't guilty of anything the populist party indicts it for. For instance, a populist party circulating misinformation about a virus and vaccines isn't helping the regular guy.

I keep coming back to the context of the US being the third largest nation on Earth in terms of population, and significantly more diverse in population than China or India, while also being religiously and ideologically pluralist as well.

Populism arises in this context as a reaction to the sense elites are not operating in the interests of "the people". But that's a sham argument because the people are inherently too diverse and too varied for majorities of the people to feel represented fairly by a single executive or a national legislative body.

The solution space for keeping this multiethnic, pluralist society together has to take the form of values and ideals that can be shared. We don't have the luxury of nations like Finland who can count on shared ethnic heritage and history to maintain cohesion when stressed.

And here's where the trap of populism lies. Lacking inherent values, focusing on opposition, it can only destroy. It lacks the tools and substance to build or even repair.

[Cultellus]

LMFAO!!!!!!!!

My work is done here.

Thank you!!!!!!

You are having trouble making an adequate life for yourself? Is that the reason for your bizarre posts? You failed in life and want to irrationally blame someone?

This is the routine here, Marcus.

We take a topic, and then we draw lines in the sand, and then we post with things like you are posting here. And we repeat this, until one ideology wins and the other side either leaves or posts pictures and words and videos. Then we do it again.

As you can see. I did not blame anyone for anything. But, you go on lying and also being the new newest f***head version of your other avatar/name/character, and we can repeat this process ad nauseum. This is how it goes. We are used to it.

[Cultellus]

And here's where the trap of populism lies. Lacking inherent values, focusing on opposition, it can only destroy. It lacks the tools and substance to build or even repair.

Or the exact opposite is true.

Try listening to Charlemagne and Candace, not just one and not just the other. And you should listen to what they have in common, not just where they disagree. Try listening to Tulsi and Bernie, not just for differences, but also for what they have in common.