MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 13th 2018 - 22:45 UTC

Populism is not an ideology, it's a political technique which thrives on angry people

Thursday, December 6th 2018 - 09:28 UTC
Full article 2 comments

Five of the world’s largest democracies now have populist governments, claimed The Guardian last week, and proceeded to name four: the United States, India, Brazil and the Philippines. Which is the fifth? At various points it name-checks Turkey, Italy and the United Kingdom, but it never becomes clear which. (And by the way, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi is not a populist. He’s just a nationalist.) Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • bushpilot

    No mention of the socialist riots in France that turned the country upside down then?

    Those people weren't angry, they were legitimately “dissatisfied”.

    But I see what this writer is getting at though. Liberal thinking is level headed, conservative thinking is “angry”.

    If a liberal is elected, that is not populism. If a conservative is elected, those people that did that were “too emotional to really think that through”.

    After the populist Donald Trump won the election, due to an “angry” populace, the liberals that burned limosines, smashed windows, and attacked conservative victory rallies were not “angry”, they were legitimately “protesting”.

    The Americans that voted for a crooked politician, Hillary Clinton, were level-headed in their thinking. They made a “good” choice. No one can condemn them for voting for a crook. Only those that voted against having a crooked politician as their leader can be condemned.

    Americans had a right to choose their leader, and they chose the one this author didn't like. So something must be wrong with their thinking. Only when we choose leaders that this writer approves of is our thinking “good thinking”.

    And the message here is clear:

    Liberals are level-headed and balanced, conservatives are “unbalanced”. So you see ladies and gentlemen, only a liberal voice is legitimate.

    The world would obviously be better off if only liberal voices were allowed to participate in democracy. That would be a good, level-headed, balanced, and superior democracy.


    Is this writer politically balanced, like a professional writer should be? Well, of course he is. A pallet of bricks has the left side of the scale crushed to the ground, that is “balanced” and “level” to him.

    This author is not “unbalanced”.

    The Guardian is very balanced and level too, like Fox News.


    “My thinking is good, your thinking is bad.” And this is the logic of a “superior” intellect, the kind that should be running things.

    Dec 06th, 2018 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jack Bauer

    “Populism is not an ideology. It’s just a political technique, equally available to right-wingers, left-wingers...”. Sounds fair....up to here.

    When she writes “In this era, populism seems to partner best with right-wing nationalist ideologies like those of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil”, the biased crap begins. The bias becomes even more obvious as she goes on “it claims to be on the side of ‘ordinary people’ 'n against a ‘corrupt elite’ that exploits and despises them. It’s light on policy 'n heavy on emotion, particularly the emotions of fear 'n hatred...”, without mentioning Lula, and clearly trying to associate these tactics to Bolsonaro.

    Despite having stated 'populism' serves both sides, left 'n right, and having unwittingly described Lula & PT administrations down to a tee, not even one bad word about Lula, who played the “people's-man” card to exhaustion, threw the poor against the elite etc....Seems that author G. Dyer believes that Lula's hatred of the 'elite' was justified, even though he is now part of it....and despite the fact that his current abode deprives him of enjoying his ill-gotten gains.

    She goes on to mention that “the anger is about the fact that the jobs are disappearing, and what’s killing them is automation”......true in the US. But she fails to mention the 14,000,000 jobs lost in Brazil due to Lula's populist policies, as if it were insignificant .....but of course, that's ok, as it's only a problem when/ if caused by a right-wing government...

    Getting back to her “In this era, populism seems to partner best with right-wing nationalist ideologies like those of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil”, she has the nerve to insinuate that the problem Brazil is going through now - which she conveniently ignores because it was caused by Lula's populism - is all Jair Bolsonaro's fault, who hasn't even taken over yet.

    Her left-wing bias prevents her from mentioning the biggest and most destructive-ever, populist fiasco in Brazil.

    Dec 06th, 2018 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment.