whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't know, but you definitely found the right place to ask.

---

I see what you did there!

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Nothing scares the national socialists like uppity minorities.

This historic win will bring back God to the halls of Congress! This win is for the people who were ignored for so long! This is a message that the establishment will no longer be tolerated! We have officially started the red wave!! #TX34

God, Family, Country

---

You guys really see true Facists? I know there are true Socialists because they say it. But Facists? Or, is this another term to throw around like "insurrection" and "weakening our Democracy" to get reactions.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

Well said.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Nothing scares the national socialists like uppity minorities.

This historic win will bring back God to the halls of Congress! This win is for the people who were ignored for so long! This is a message that the establishment will no longer be tolerated! We have officially started the red wave!! #TX34

God, Family, Country

---

You guys really see true Facists? I know there are true Socialists because they say it. But Facists? Or, is this another term to throw around like "insurrection" and "weakening our Democracy" to get reactions.

---

It is a fact that the left has crowd funded militias that show up every two years to beat and burn anything which opposes them. It is a fact that if one opposes leftist orthodoxy, one faces risk of losing one's job, etc...... look at the Leah Thomas affair. Everyone, from the edge of the pool all the way to the DC Beltway could see what was happening, a weak young man was exploiting new rules to bully girls. And everyone was afraid to speak the truth.....players feared losing their scholarships, coaches feared losing their jobs, and so on and so on up the ladder, only the higher up the ladder one went, the more one could expect to find people who thought the bullying was the natural order of things. (queue up "elite establishments losing touch with the masses...")..

Reality is, the right has almost no power at all to oppose this. The left controls most of the most important establishments. And because they control them all, they think they've won the argument (ergo have moral authority to cancel.) But they haven't won any arguments at all. They've used their growing power to squelch dissent. So you see populist energy welling up everywhere. And that attracts politicians to take up those popular causes. It is the natural order of things. If you don't like it when that dynamic happens, fine. Then do a better job of listening to the American people and redressing their grievances.

Those grievances will at some point be redressed. The only question is who will see to it.

---

Ok, your are talking radical communist. I agree. Facists are on the far right, radical Communist on the far left. Just confused. Get it now. Funny how the actions of the far left and right end up being the same, with different believes behind them!

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Nothing scares the national socialists like uppity minorities.

This historic win will bring back God to the halls of Congress! This win is for the people who were ignored for so long! This is a message that the establishment will no longer be tolerated! We have officially started the red wave!! #TX34

God, Family, Country

---

You guys really see true Facists? I know there are true Socialists because they say it. But Facists? Or, is this another term to throw around like "insurrection" and "weakening our Democracy" to get reactions.

---

It is a fact that the left has crowd funded militias that show up every two years to beat and burn anything which opposes them. It is a fact that if one opposes leftist orthodoxy, one faces risk of losing one's job, etc...... look at the Leah Thomas affair. Everyone, from the edge of the pool all the way to the DC Beltway could see what was happening, a weak young man was exploiting new rules to bully girls. And everyone was afraid to speak the truth.....players feared losing their scholarships, coaches feared losing their jobs, and so on and so on up the ladder, only the higher up the ladder one went, the more one could expect to find people who thought the bullying was the natural order of things. (queue up "elite establishments losing touch with the masses...")..

Reality is, the right has almost no power at all to oppose this. The left controls most of the most important establishments. And because they control them all, they think they've won the argument (ergo have moral authority to cancel.) But they haven't won any arguments at all. They've used their growing power to squelch dissent. So you see populist energy welling up everywhere. And that attracts politicians to take up those popular causes. It is the natural order of things. If you don't like it when that dynamic happens, fine. Then do a better job of listening to the American people and redressing their grievances.

Those grievances will at some point be redressed. The only question is who will see to it.

---

Exactly. What's the old saying? "Satan's greatest trick was convincing us he doesn't exist." Convincing people that anyone on the right is an extremist unless they abandon conservative thought and accept leftist ideals is their MO. Pointing out the leftist bias of the media makes you an extremist that labels others "communists". There is no ability to have a discussion on even terms.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

Yes, populism is more often associated with grassroots leftist politics. But on closer inspection, a lot of the type is astroturf, generated by political organization rather than the kind of true, bottom-up populism that storms the Bastille with pitchforks. CRT, Queer Theory, etc.....literally is a top-down dynamic straight off the college campus (another of those institutional failures I mention from time to time). Only an intellectual would seek to start an insurrection with the battle cry "I only regret that I have but one life to give for anti-racism!" And you see GOP never-Trumpers projecting that dynamic as "Trump the grifter" as though he, Trump, has conjured up the populism he rides out of thin air. Poppycock. He's tapping into enormous grievances that need to be redressed. But once one admits that, then one tends to understand and at least grudgingly acquiesce to the Trump movement. Can't have that, though. We must be dignified. So it's back to Trump the Grifter.

"Anti-Globalism" however, is exactly the kind of true populism that I'm talking about, for reasons I have written and spoken about many times here and elsewhere. Globalism was an elegant and effective solution for how to win the Cold War, and it created a post-WWII order that indeed achieved its aims of peace and prosperity. But at a cost, most significantly the erosion of the American manufacturing base. That cost was worth bearing so long as we faced the USSR. The populism arises when the Cold War ended. Globalism had served its purpose. Time to rebuild out manufacturing economy. But that didn't happen. And the costs of the policy continued. Over time...the failure of globalism to address the needs of ordinary people caused angst to build and build. Finally it took a Trump to end it.....a politician willing to address valid grievances of a very significant part of the USA. And fast forward 7 years, we now see a literal realignment of the parties - the GOP a working-class multi-racial party pushing jobs and prosperity for the middle-class, with Democrats being an alliance of intellectual and corporate interests allied with inner city political machines pushing social justice. The people who call "anti-globalism" a form of populism are, of course, mostly people invested in the globalism emotionally or financially. In reality, globalism had served its purpose (admirably) and out-lived it to the point of harm. So it died, thanks to populist energy and a politician willing to tap that energy. A great example how our system harnesses populism in a way that rationally and peacefully ends established orders that need to go away.

On your last paragraph. I'm not pushing Trump. I'm recognizing what is obvious to Democrats (who are desperate to stop him with the most outlandish of efforts) and most Republicans - Trump is the clear and commanding leader of the party with the best chance of A) winning the 2024 election, and B) accomplishing the construction of a post-WWII and post-post-modernist order. He didn't plan the riot which occurred on J6. He actually offered NG troops to WDC and Congress, which were refused. So he has nothing to apologize for. If you'd quit listening to Democrat nonsense, you'd see that.

If you haven't seen Victor Davis Hanson's presentation on Trump as a tragic hero, I recommend it highly. Trump is the furthest thing from the man for all seasons. But he has singular traits that are pretty well suited for what we need for this moment in time.

Populist energy is just political capital that elite institutions see as a threat. The wise course is to address it with policy that solves the problem generating the energy, rather than virtue posturing about people seeking redress of valid grievances as somehow being a threat to democracy. And to solve those problems, you have to win elections. The left doesn't have a problem harnessing populist energy, real or contrived, to be able to solve the problems it sees, so why should we? I think that sentiment, now widely shared in the GOP, is what has really stumped the neverTrumpers. Demeanor is so important to them, so inured to notions of what our side cannot do or say. Those days are over. Thankfully....

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

Populist energy is just political capital that elite institutions see as a threat. The wise course is to address it with policy that solves the problem generating the energy, rather than virtue posturing about people seeking redress of valid grievances as somehow being a threat to democracy.

---

The problem is that democracy has become their grievance, and they show no signs of letting it go.

Nancy Pelosi, we saw what you did to Republican @MayraFlores2022 kid at her swearing in. pic.twitter.com/oKCHAh8CT2

— Desi (@Desi_3650) June 25, 2022

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

Populist energy is just political capital that elite institutions see as a threat. The wise course is to address it with policy that solves the problem generating the energy, rather than virtue posturing about people seeking redress of valid grievances as somehow being a threat to democracy.

---

The problem is that LACK OF democracy has become their grievance, and they show no signs of letting it go.

---

FIFY.

See the thread on new Title IX rules. Now their daughters have to compete with boys in sporting establishments originally established for girls, and if they complain about it, they'll be guilty of hate speech (which is violence, you know) and likely cause their daughters to lose their spot on the team. That is all because establishments know better and must protect society from the ordinary, ideally via administrative rule which beyond is beyond democratic process. Ordinary is oppressive, you know, so it must be subjected to repressive tolerance until coerced to conform to new pseudo-realities.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

Populist energy is just political capital that elite institutions see as a threat. The wise course is to address it with policy that solves the problem generating the energy, rather than virtue posturing about people seeking redress of valid grievances as somehow being a threat to democracy.

---

The problem is that LACK OF democracy has become their grievance, and they show no signs of letting it go.

---

FIFY.

See the thread on new Title IX rules. Now their daughters have to compete with boys in sporting establishments originally established for girls, and if they complain about it, they'll be guilty of hate speech (which is violence, you know) and likely cause their daughters to lose their spot on the team. That is all because establishments know better and must protect society from the ordinary, ideally via administrative rule which beyond is beyond democratic process. Ordinary is oppressive, you know, so it must be subjected to repressive tolerance until coerced to conform to new pseudo-realities.

---

Administrative agencies aren't beyond democratic process. Their powers are delegated by our elected leaders and can always be un-delegated or changed. Trumpists may not like administrative rules (except when they do), but that isn't what the bulk of their complaining is about. I can give you a hint what it is about -- it's something that happened in 2020 as part of the democratic process.

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

What again did Trump do that was unconstitutional? I'll sit back and enjoy my pretzel. With salt. Yum.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

After last Friday and the insurrections we've been witnessing nation wide in baby murdering states, nobody even remembers the Ashli Babbitt Day massacre.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Populism and constant uses of the phrase white supremacy since Obama a sure sign hystrionics are happening and they've already lost.

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

How's it different than a socialist like Biden or Obama or pick one not once telling BlM or Antofa to stand down, quit stealing, quit murdering, quit burning shot to the ground etc. not once. Not a single call to stand down. To stop. To compromise. We all know they are rent a mobs.

And yet when true destruction and murder are happening by the left, not a peep. Yet a minority murders a white woman in cold blood and Trump was the problem.

Pretty Fascinating

Soma y'all way too deep in the rabbit hole and believing because people you work with etc won't say a word against anything For fear of losing Their jobs, y'all think they agree with you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

Populist energy is just political capital that elite institutions see as a threat. The wise course is to address it with policy that solves the problem generating the energy, rather than virtue posturing about people seeking redress of valid grievances as somehow being a threat to democracy.

---

The problem is that LACK OF democracy has become their grievance, and they show no signs of letting it go.

---

FIFY.

See the thread on new Title IX rules. Now their daughters have to compete with boys in sporting establishments originally established for girls, and if they complain about it, they'll be guilty of hate speech (which is violence, you know) and likely cause their daughters to lose their spot on the team. That is all because establishments know better and must protect society from the ordinary, ideally via administrative rule which beyond is beyond democratic process. Ordinary is oppressive, you know, so it must be subjected to repressive tolerance until coerced to conform to new pseudo-realities.

---

Administrative agencies aren't beyond democratic process. Their powers are delegated by our elected leaders and can always be un-delegated or changed. Trumpists may not like administrative rules (except when they do), but that isn't what the bulk of their complaining is about. I can give you a hint what it is about -- it's something that happened in 2020 as part of the democratic process.

---

Ahem, rules like the hundreds of unconstitutional changes to voting laws and magical results after pipes break in Jerryworld sized facilities and 4-5 locations (that btw Bernie sanders explicitly called out just a couple days before) magically change the outcome of an election? Y'all may be good at some stuff but math isn't apparently one of them but apparently you don't believe in miracles

Fre3dombear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

How's it different than a socialist like Biden or Obama or pick one not once telling BlM or Antofa to stand down, quit stealing, quit murdering, quit burning shot to the ground etc. not once. Not a single call to stand down. To stop. To compromise. We all know they are rent a mobs.

And yet when true destruction and murder are happening by the left, not a peep. Yet a minority murders a white woman in cold blood and Trump was the problem.

Pretty Fascinating

Soma y'all way too deep in the rabbit hole and believing because people you work with etc won't say a word against anything For fear of losing Their jobs, y'all think they agree with you.

---

You and Whiterock keep grinding. Trump is poison and has no business being considered as a candidate.

I am so proud of my strong, beautiful daughter for not allowing this to faze her. She continued to smile and pose for the picture like a Queen.

No child should be pushed to the side for a photo op. PERIOD!! https://t.co/TA50EntDoq

— Mayra Flores For Congress 🇺🇸🦅 (@MayraFlores2022) June 27, 2022

ATL Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

How's it different than a socialist like Biden or Obama or pick one not once telling BlM or Antofa to stand down, quit stealing, quit murdering, quit burning shot to the ground etc. not once. Not a single call to stand down. To stop. To compromise. We all know they are rent a mobs.

And yet when true destruction and murder are happening by the left, not a peep. Yet a minority murders a white woman in cold blood and Trump was the problem.

Pretty Fascinating

Soma y'all way too deep in the rabbit hole and believing because people you work with etc won't say a word against anything For fear of losing Their jobs, y'all think they agree with you.

---

You and Whiterock keep grinding. Trump is poison and has no business being considered as a candidate.

---

2nd best president of most peoples lifetimes. Most peaceful president in near half a century.

I know y'all want him to be poison but never had more people won at life than the 4 years under trump.

And just like that, people struggling to pay the mortgage. But yeah, keep on grindin

Fre3dombear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

jupiter said:

---

Establishment Republicans suck precisely because they left the door open to someone like Trump.

But regardless, if you're really concerned about stopping fascists (and communists) as well, by far the best and easiest way to do that is simply to support and uphold the Constitution, whether the threat is coming from the right or the left doesn't matter, it works both ways.

I'm certainly willing to join anyone who is willing to put away partisan divides and find common ground in support of the Constitution.

Can we not just simply find common ground in the Constitution and focus on that above all else?

---

Democracy runs counter to the constitution and freedom. And populist democracy is the worst.

---

that's why we have a Republic, to harness populism into a positive force for change, to force establishments to respond to redress of grievances. We're going to see a little of that the next two cycles.

Populism is a word never heard unless establishments have screwed things up.

---

We have a Republic to protect against the dangers of populism, not harness it. Every populist in history has claimed to be fighting or trying to change "the establishment". Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, fascists, both began with being populists, and winning elections as populists.

---

That is a very conventional critique of populism, but it contains a patent cause/effect fallacy. If German and Italian elected officials had done a responsible job of listening to the complaints of their voters and responding with policy that addresses those concerns, there would not have been enough oxygen for Hitler and Mussolini to have ridden populist sentiment to power. Your argument implies is that populism is a problem of authoritarian demagogues who somehow, amid a context of peace & prosperity, conjure up with false words and clever deeds the populist energy they ride to power. The reality is, surging populism is a sign that prior leaders and existing institutions have not done a good job at redressing the grievances of the peoples they ostensibly serve. And your argument only perpetuates such problems by treating every popular cause as a threat to democracy, when in fact it is only a threat to dysfunctional established order.

One way or the other, populist grievances must be addressed.
The only question is who gets to do it.
When we see establishments recoiling in horror at populism led by Trump as somehow remotely analogous to Hitler/Mussolini, we know that those establishments are truly out of touch and need exactly the thoroughgoing overhaul they fear.


And you are have it exactly backwards on the purpose of our Republic. The structures of our Republic are designed to harness populist energy and shape it into a productive force for change. It works better at that than any other social contract in history.

---

You are under the charismatic spell if you really believe what you're dishing out. Since the dawn of this nation, populism was handled through the legislature. A constitutional right to vote for President was not, and is not part of the law today (all hail the electoral college). There was and rightly should be a fear of a strong executive authority. It doesn't matter whether it's Donald Trump, Barack Obama, or Ronald Reagan. We've continued to consolidate and expand executive authority, which makes the danger of populism an even greater threat.

There seems to be a delusion that Trump's policies were/are something unique to conservatism or the GOP. At best he's Pat Buchanan part 2. But Populism of personality built on the emotion of grievance is what's at work here, and that's the parallel to the aforementioned fascists. If Trump were some policy ideologue that might be something, but his only concrete foundation is self promotion. And yes, populism has been the wave ridden by countless "authoritarian demagogues" throughout history, whether they were kings, dictators, presidents, or governors.

The fact that Trump has never expressed any regrets or apologies about how the Jan 6 situation went down, but has instead doubled down on his version of the narrative is very telling. And I know it wasn't an insurrection, and the left is destructively making hay politically out of it, but it's this complete lack of self awareness that makes him such a bad choice as a leader. Donald Trump is not a policy decision, he's a personality and concept decision. It's past time to move on from him.

---

You probably don't want me on your side right now, but this is remarkably insightful.

---

It also quite pointedly answers questions not asked, and in the first sentence (bolded) actually cedes my point - that our Republic is designed to harness rather than squelch populist redress of grievances. It also is an irritable anti-Trump screed, whereas I mentioned him once in passing, as an example to address the latent absurdity (built on post-modernist notions of authoritarian personality) of the man as an analog to Hitler/Mussolini. Some people NEED to see him that way to justify their visceral aversion to him, though, no matter how foolish it makes them look. Emotion does that to people.

Doubling down on a questionable political narrative is merely a Trump thing? Have you ever watched any other political figures in your lifetime, notably the Clintons? For that matter, do you not see Democrats pushing systemic oppression and queer theory in the face of increasing backlash? Let me be clear: Pandering is part of the job description for an elected official. Such is necessary to keep your base happy and well organized. If you think you're too good to do it, don't run for office. You won't last long.

But back to populism. The uninitiated use that word as if it is an ideology with a discrete set of tenets. All it means is....a political movement juxtaposed against out-of-touch elites. Like when parents go to the School Board meeting angry at what's being taught to their kids in school. Like when Hispanics in the Rio Grande Valley swing from one party to the other by 20-30 points over anger at what illegal immigration is doing to their community. Sure, elites can and do launch the IRS to lean on the Tea Party, or the FBI to investigate the PTA. That's what elite institutions do...they use the power they have to protect themselves (particularly when liberals control them), in most cases to buy time to make (wisely) some course corrections, but not always (see Trudeau, Justin). Or just generally poor leadership in the face of multiple challenges, like Jimmy Carter and the current guy (a bumbler on his best day now entering advanced senescence.)

I say this again, as someone trained in comparative politics to observe and analyze political systems - when you hear the word "populism" being used frequently in the media, you can be certain that elite institutions have screwed up a number of things. Like a quarter-million people being arrested & released per month while crossing a border that should be defended. Like $6/gal gasoline due to policies designed to end use of fossil fuels. And on and on. Nothing builds VALID grievances like a political establishment pursuing ideological imperatives which do great harm to ordinary people. So when you see those ordinary people pick up the proverbial pitchforks, for sure elites will blame the guy at the front of the crowd for whipping up anger out of nothing, but a prudent analyst would recognize that the problem virtually always goes way beyond the crowd. Populist energy is a sure sign that political elites have screwed up. And boy, do we have a bonfire of vanities going on at the moment.

The good thing is, we have a system designed to harness that to effect positive change. And change is coming. Whether you like its leader or not. And when you use that word populism on the offense, you can be sure you are playing defense.

---

Actually, populism has been a hallmark of leftist politics, and has been the driving force behind our nations drift toward many of the "grievances" you mention. Progressive populism gets you Barack Obama, AOC, and Bernie Sanders. It gets you BLM, anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, and anti-militarism, an odd parallel sentiment to some Trump populist rhetoric. It gets you the grievance culture we live in today, where everyone has a victim status and cause against the white, hetero normative, patriarchal, capitalist oppression of the Western world (you know, "elites"). Or as "someone trained in comparative politics" did you not see the parallels of the political mechanism at work you seem to be lauding so greatly now? Populism isn't about what issues are important to citizens, it's about using public sentiment or movements to gain power and subvert other institutions to this "will of the people". It's the cocaine of politics, full of energy and intensity, but ultimately addictive and destructive to its people and purpose. So yes, I'm a fan of both offense and defense against populism, or at least an extremely wary eye on it. It's just been odd to have to try and resist it in conservative circles. As if we don't have it lain before us its destructive force.

I'm still awaiting an answer as to the logic of pushing Trump as the candidate, and why has he shown zero remorse or even an inkling of regret about the Jan. 6 situation? You can chalk the riling up of his followers and seeing the riot at the capital to just one more example of the danger of populism. Time to move on.

---

How's it different than a socialist like Biden or Obama or pick one not once telling BlM or Antofa to stand down, quit stealing, quit murdering, quit burning shot to the ground etc. not once. Not a single call to stand down. To stop. To compromise. We all know they are rent a mobs.

And yet when true destruction and murder are happening by the left, not a peep. Yet a minority murders a white woman in cold blood and Trump was the problem.

Pretty Fascinating

Soma y'all way too deep in the rabbit hole and believing because people you work with etc won't say a word against anything For fear of losing Their jobs, y'all think they agree with you.

---

You and Whiterock keep grinding. Trump is poison and has no business being considered as a candidate.

---

2nd best president of most peoples lifetimes. Most peaceful president in near half a century.

I know y'all want him to be poison but never had more people won at life than the 4 years under trump.

And just like that, people struggling to pay the mortgage. But yeah, keep on grindin

---

I agree with everything you say. Under Trump everyone did better. Every demographic was better in 2019 than 2015. Trump may have made the rich money, but his policies raised ALL ships on that tide.

I actually thought his isolationist military policies teamed with the Globalist views of Mattis and Company was a productive combination (not that either side would admit it). He recognized the need for a Space Command independent of the Air Force. Took care of ISIS.

In Foreign Policy, he prodded NATO to pay more for their defense. He challenged China. He actually started getting peace treaties in the Middle East that included Arab AND Israel, which if that didn't deserve the Noble nothing ever did!

Domestic, taxes were reasonable. He made us work to be self-sufficient. Regulations allowed business to grow and actually consider moving manufacturing back to the US. Think about that.

Congressional - Prison Reform, Tax Reform. There was so much more that could have been done if Shumar and Pelosi were willing to deal and not play power politics. Trump LOVED cutting deals, what a missed opportunity.

Supreme Court & Judiciary, re-made it in four years. He got all 3 confirmed. Obama, for all his accolades, couldn't figure out how to fill one. If it wasn't Garland, he had no response but to cry and whine, effective...

Negatively, his need for self-importance, use of hyperbole and general vernacular was brutal. Everything HAD to be best ever, most attended, ect... He was toxic once his opposition took shots at him, which was from the campaign on (Resist, before even seeing what he wanted to do or what deals he would cut???)

Overall, a very productive Presidency. But he is dead as a candidate now. TOO TOXIC. His ******* personality was acceptable when he was viable to cut deals. That time has passed. He wouldn't be able to get anything done now. It would be one impeachment after another searching for ANYTHING to stick. We need to move on from Trump, Biden, Shumar, Pelosi and OConnell. They are no longer productive.