Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I’m just going to point out that the key element of populism as typically defined by scholars isn’t doing something that’s broadly popular but rather politics centered on a juxtaposition between “the people” and “the elite”.
That’s not really something Lincoln did. Funnily enough, Lincoln is usually regarded as a president who did very little to embrace populism. He was notably unhappy with Jackson’s populism, criticising it as a threat to the stability of the US.
Also, on what planet could joining WW2 be described as a betrayal of blacks?
Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 10th 2019 at 4:05:05 AM
They should have sent a poet.Are you serious or joking?
I'd argue that was a key feature of the Republican party platform and helped save America.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 10th 2019 at 4:01:09 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Yes, I'm wondering if he's joking.
But I repeat: The communist party ordered all Civil Rights work except for a few small elements to be halted before WW 2.
They also, during the Treaty with the Soviet Union, forbid any criticism of Nazi Germany. They only changed it when Hitler invaded.
Previously, it had been heavily involved in Civil Rights.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 10th 2019 at 4:02:54 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Woah woah woah, everyone calm down, please!
Okay. I'm pretty sure Charles' point is that the CPUSA during WW 2 betrayed its own values to serve the direction of the Soviet Union, and that Lincoln was a user of populism in that he rallied against a Southern Plantation Elite. I'm pretty sure Archons's was that the definition of Populism is usually a bit more specific than that, and Lincoln would not be considered a Populist in the same way as, say, William Jennings Brian. Hodor was discussing Populism in the sense of the rhetoric used.
Right?
Edited by AzurePaladin on Apr 10th 2019 at 7:13:12 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerAppealing to the quote-unquote common man as believing their needs are not being met by quote-unquote elites.
Sorry for the confusion above.
The whole "Communist Betrayal" was covered heavily by my African American Histories professor.
He had an infectious way of making it outrageous to his students.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.@Charles(obviously I guess)- I do find it outrageous that American Communists supported Hitler as long as Stalin did, because it makes their later anti-Nazism seem insincere and only motivated by support for Stalin and not an actual moral objection to Hitler.
However, while it's bad in itself that supporting Roosevelt and the war was given priority over Civil Rights (especially given the motivation issue noted before), as far as I understand- and again correct me if I'm wrong- you don't think the U.S. should have actually intervened ''at all'.
So like you aren't really arguing that the U.S. should have both advanced civil rights and opposed Hitler militarily, because you don't think the U.S. should have opposed Hitler militarily. Right?
And once again with Lincoln and the then Republicans. They were pro-business (including "big business") and free trade and part and parcel of this was an open immigration policy and opposition to slavery. Although Davis, Lee and co. were elites, there was no anti-elite framing to Lincoln and the Republicans. They at least in part represented elites themselves. Just the Northern elites and not the Southern ones.
If you want to find a populist during that time period, look at white racist "Free Soilers"/then-Democrats who didn't want to compete with cheaper non-white laborers, and so didn't want slavery to spread (but in no way wanted there to be any free blacks in America), and who wanted to close the borders.
That’s the basic gist of populism. It may not have been clear what you were getting at with some of your previous posts, sorry.
I’ll point out, though, that even then Lincoln was still not a populist. He had nothing but contempt for Jacksonian populism, and was not fond of the anti-elite class conflict rhetoric that defines populist movements. He represented interested we’d usually associated with the “elite” like banking and big business. He was famously fond of Henry Clay, who was about as far from a populist as you could get. All of his major political opponents were populists, and he mocked them on it endlessly.
Simply opposing a powerful faction does not make you a populist. Populism is defined by anti-“elite” class conflict rhetoric, like Trump’s endless attacks on the political and media establishments, and Lincoln just did not exemplify that.
Just to add on to the end of all that, the people trying to claim Lincoln as a populist are almost always modern social conservatives with deeply suspect motives for doing so.
Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 10th 2019 at 4:27:58 AM
They should have sent a poet.@archonspeaks- This
Yeah, I have to admit I can't full parse or explain it myself, but what makes the political shifts of the parties complicated and kind of plays into why there's a certain Not So Different about Sanders and Trump, is because the 19th century Republicans were big business as part of a general support of freedom/freedom of commerce, which also tied into them being anti-slavery, pro-immigration, and in favor of that era's version of a progressive economic policy, which was giving free land to homesteaders (shame about the Native Americans already living on that land).
Conversely, the 19th century Democrats were proponents of the common man, as long as he was white and male and preferably some kind of small farmer, and opposed big banks and anything that would interfere with his status, which meant that they either supported the rights of the common man to own slaves if he was successful or to not be impacted by the expansion of slavery or free African Americans as economic competition.
So, at least in part I see it as the 19th Century Republicans ending up as modern Neoliberal Democrats and the Democrats as right-wing "populist" Republicans (so like the Tea Party and Trump). But it's a bit more complicated, because the 19th century Republicans had what were for their era economically progressive policies, and conversely, at the end of the day, the 19th century Democrats were pretty pro-elite themselves and demographically lined up with people who vote for Republicans nowadays.
Kind of getting sidetracked, but one way this plays out is that for a long time modern Democrats still saw themselves as the Party of Jefferson and Jackson, but now they like Hamilton and Lincoln. And while Leftists hate Jackson (as most sane/decent people do), they also tend to hate Hamilton and to a lesser extent, they don't necessarily "like" Lincoln. Because neither of them were populists.
@demarquis- Yeah, I question that too, because at least my understanding was that leftists of the time were opposed to Fascism and while maybe had a crisis of conscience when Stalin and Hitler were briefly allied, they were "happy" when Hitler broke the pact, because it allowed them to be on the side they wanted to be on anyway. Which don't get me wrong is still bad, but I don't think everyone was "just" basing their politics on wherever Stalin was at the moment. For instance, a lot of American Leftists opposed Franco in Spain (which granted, AFAIK put them on the same side as the Soviet Union).
Edited by Hodor2 on Apr 10th 2019 at 6:42:00 AM
Question, given that there are many examples of populism leading countries down the wrong path, do you think that having the presidency elected by the popular vote would increase or decrease populist tendencies and why? If it does increase populist tendencies is having it tied to the popular vote worth the risk?
"Populist" is a specific brand of rhetoric and a set of attitudes towards ones mandate and domestic policy.
It's not actually linked to how popular the candidate is or voter turnout.
Trump is a populist and he had the minority amount of votes.
The more popular candidate was not actually a populist
Edited by LeGarcon on Apr 10th 2019 at 8:08:43 AM
Oh really when?That would be completely wrong and misunderstands what populist means.
To reject populism completely would mean rejecting democracy. It is not an ideology, it is a tool.
Two different people with opposite views can be populists.
The American Left of the Great Depression meant a great deal different than it did during the Modern Era.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 10th 2019 at 5:35:56 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
I’m genuinely confused as to what your understanding of populism is.
Populism is not democracy. The statement “To reject populism completely would mean rejecting democracy” is utterly nonsensical. Populism is a pattern of rhetoric depicting “the people” as a morally good force in class conflict with the corrupt “elites”. That’s not something Lincoln exhibited, and is something the Democrats in his era exhibited.
They should have sent a poet.Say hi to the same corruption but hidden behind "But what about thw Elites??" and Chapo Trap House ignoring the eroding of a democracy that is destabilizing your region and also calling you racist for saying that being indigenous don't justify you making yourself President for Life even if you're native yourself.
Edited by KazuyaProta on Apr 10th 2019 at 8:39:19 AM
Watch me destroying my countryThe rejection of elites is not an inherently bad thing and a fairly foundational principle of democracy. Republicanism is that there are skilled people who can represent you BETTER but even they have to bow to the will of the people.
And Lincoln's rhetoric was not remotely that way. Concluding the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln declared that the Civil War was being waged so “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.People tend not to really agree with what populism means, but I feel the word has lost a lot of its intended meaning in recent years due to people just using it as a synonym for nationalistic far-right strongmen (and some of those strongmen consciously commandeering the term). As I see it, the core tenet of populism is mindlessly telling people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it's logical or true.
Trump's border wall and the promise of Mexico paying for it is, for instance, textbook populism. It's an idea that's wildly impractical and pointless, and difficult to justify either as a concept or to execute effectively. But if you're concerned about illegal immigration, having a wall sure sounds good, doesn't it? That's why it's proved an effective campaign promise — not because it's a good or logical thing to want, but because to Trump's base, it sounds nice. That's populism: Overpromising things that are out of touch with reality because they sound good.

If so, you’re really sounding like Pat Buchanan here.
I posted above they first argued that the Nazi Regime wasn't a threat. Then they supported intervention only when the Soviets were threatened. They also strongly discouraged Pro-Equality marches, political attacks, protests against unfair tratment, and attempts to sit out the war unless the army was integrated. The USCP demanded members totally support intervention and abandon all equality work (save a couple of exceptions) until the war was won.
I'm confused at how that doesn't outrage you.
Defeating the Nazis did not require submitting to racists.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 10th 2019 at 3:52:56 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.