Talk:Populism
|
|
I think that any good list of populists shouldn't omit William Goebel
I rewrote the page on populist to add more detail on historic and current populist movements in the U.S., and because the existing page didn't reflect a neutral point of view at all even though I did agree with the point of view expressed. I was hoping to reflect the essence of the previous page while making it more neutral and detailed. But yeah, I do agree that populist and populism should probably be linked and their contents combined in some fashion.
'Also, on the populism entry, I don't really agree that the word 'dictator' would apply to Huey Long. Corrupt yes, autocratic maybe, but he was not on the same level as Hitler or Stalin. -- Canyonrat'
Being a dictator is quantitative question, not a qualitative.-FredrikM
Should this be merged with Demagogue? -- The Anome
- A true populist is not a demagogue. Demagogues are concerned with their own ambitions and might (mis-)use populism (or other means) to achieve them. IMO, the "Descent into demagoguery" is not particular to populists, and perhaps some of this section should be moved to Demagogue. Jrv 22:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Seems to me that the Populist and Populism pages should be linked, at the very least. IMO, ideally the Populist page would merely be:
A Populist is an advocate or practitioner of Populism. Famous, infamous, or otherwise well-known Populists include: (list of people).
Jrv 22:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, populism is "government" (or other socio-political support) for the benefit of common people, as contrasted with corporatism for example. I don't believe that populism assumes or requires "elites". Jrv 22:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
More American neopopulists
Arianna Huffington, Jerry Brown, and Dennis Kucinich on the left, Howard Dean on the center, and Pat Buchanan and H.Ross Perot on the right?
One point that doesn't come across well enough in this article is that populism is not necessarily bad. Dean, for instance, may well be a populist, but that doesn't make him a bad presidential candidate. On the right,Arnold Schwartzenegger shamelessly used populist tactics to get himself elected. Heck, the current Australian PM, John Howard, loves to bash "the elites" (people who disagree with him). --Robert Merkel 05:01, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This article should draw on the recent use of the concept "populism" in social science academic literature, given that it's otherwise more likely than not too elastic and loosely-defined for an encyclopedic entry of this level of detail.
Available online there's a wealth of material to draw on, but it's hard to find free access articles to which I can refer people who don't have access to JSTOR-affiliated journals. Here's one, though. This provides a good overview, though it's focused on Latin American cases with which many users are likely less familiar- but at least it's free. http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=neoliberal+populism&ei=UTF-8&cop=mss&url=ZGG4CFaEa6gJ:www.iir.ubc.ca/pwiasconferences/threatstodemocracy/abstractspapers/roberts.pdf 172 00:51, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
populism and nationalism
I merged the content, but saw a recent edit to this sentance:
' , and even recently, those who committed aggression against Serbia and its leader Slobodan Milosevic. '
This a weird and controvercial thing to say, originally (sometime ago, in the previous article) it was comparring Milosevic to stalin and hitler, and now it is comparring his enemies to the same. I think its prob best left out entirely, as that conflict has a wide range of POV around it, and finding a way to discuss the matter while keeping all reasonable minds happy might be more difficult than its worth. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new)] 02:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
demagoguery?
"Descent into demagoguery" doesn't seem to suggest NPOV. This header doesn't really fit into the style of the rest of the headers, and the section itself doesn't really talk about populism at all. Should this section be removed from the article? We already have a link to demagoguery at the bottom. --Agoode 19:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I merged it w demagoguery. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 21:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Populism as Style or Master Frame
A lot of academics do not call populism an "ideology" but a "style" (history & political science) or "master frame" (sociology).
Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kazin, Michael. 1995. The Populist Persuasion: An American History. New York: Basic Books.
Berlet, Chip and Matthew N. Lyons. 2000. Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press.
Can we talk?--Cberlet 03:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think your view is an acceptable addition, and have attempted a compromise, including both interpretations. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 23:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- And I like the results. Thanks. Hope others agree.--Cberlet 00:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See moved text below in new discussion.
Modern populism, of all political hues
Regardless of the calls for noting that populism is not inherently "bad", I have doubts about this list, and Aung San Suu Kyi in particular. If she is included, should we not include others who oppose oppressive governments (say, Aslan Maskhadov)? Also, her methods have been vastly different than many of the others (I'm not familiar with all, though), so I don't think she fits in too well with Le Pen, Berlusconi, Lula or Dean. Klehti 12:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Populism often incorporates nationalism, jingoisms, "common sense" and occasionally racism." What does this mean? That populists are often nationalists, jingoists and racists? That they work against these things? It's very unclear.08:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Makes sense to move "common sense" up a line.--Cberlet 14:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ideology, philosophy, or style?
- pop·u·lism Audio pronunciation of "populism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ppy-lzm)
n.
1.
1. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
2. The movement organized around this philosophy.
2. Populism The philosophy of the Populist Party.
From the American Heritage Dictionary. You may personally think that populism is rarely used as anything but a rhetorical style, but the actual term refers to the ideology/philosophy. -Grick(talk to me!) 07:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, so you have one short dictionary definition versus six scholarly books, all of which do not call populism an ideology. In fact, the dictionary definition does not call populism an "ideology" but a "political philosophy." The point of an encyclopedia entry is to go beyond simple definition, otherwise ti would be called a dictionary. We have had the conversation before, but let's start it again. What substantial published work can you cite--published on the last 25 years--that considers populism an "ideology?" There are a few, but Canovan and Kazin have done a good job of explaining why they call populism a "style." This is not my personal idiosyncratic idea...it is the overwhelming position of social science scholars today, in the U.S. and Europe.--Cberlet 14:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Political program or movement that champions the common person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite.
Populism usually combines elements of the left and right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established socialist and labour parties. In the U.S. the term was applied to the program of the Populist movement of the 1890s. http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9375664&query=populism&ct=
I don't deny that the term has multiple definition; the primary/original meaning of the term, however, refers to more than a manner of speech.
The current edit is fine with me, by the way. -Grick(talk to me!) 21:39, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe this can help...this is from The Dictionary of 20th Century World Politics, Henry Holt and Company: NY, 1993:
- Populism - Mass political movements that started in both Europe and the United States toward the end of the 19th century. Populism is known for mobilizing the poor, especially rurual people who have suffered from the dislocation of industrialization and urbanization. In this sense, both 20th century Italian Fascism and German Nazism have their beginnings in populist movements - which, however, came under control of despotic charismatic leaders. But any political movement that has mass support and is generally perceived to be acting in the interests of the people can be called populist.
Kingturtle 22:20, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- From the above discussion, it is clear that "philosophy" is more accurate than "ideology."--Cberlet 21:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
OK. Sam Spade 22:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Unexplained deletions
The recent deletions of Schwarzenegger, Dean, and Bush from a list was unexplained. If someone wants to discuss this, here is the place.--Cberlet 19:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Class struggle vrs. jingoistic racism
Populism is broad, w many paints on its pallete ;) Sam Spade 07:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I did some research, and your more right than I thiought about the racism bit. It is a theme sometimes, but not so often as class struggle. Sam Spade 08:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- answers.com/Populism (http://www.answers.com/Populism) is very informative, and needs to be incorporated into the article, esp the content from houghton mifflin. Sam Spade 08:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- One half of a discussion is simply surreal. Could folks please post the other half? --Cberlet 12:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The Houghton Mifflin text was written by Lawrence Goodwyn, author of Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America. Goodwyn tells half the story and paints a rosy picture of populism that has been sharply challenged by Canovan, Kazin, and others. Yes, the pluralist school gave populism a bad rap. But Goodwyn and others, in criticizing the Hofstadter crowd's view, went too far toward the other side. A balanced article here will include all three analytical models. To stop with Goodwyn would leave off 20 years of new research that seeks a more balanced approach to populism--seeing both the bad and the good.--Cberlet 12:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I should hope you didn;'t think I wasproposing we scrap all other sources in favor of Houghton Mifflin. Rather, I felt it had many points to offer which arn't to be found here at present. Sam Spade 21:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But who are you talking to above? What was the other half of the discussion?--Cberlet 03:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Have a look at the edit history, I was discussing edits which had been recently made. Not worth worrying yourself over. My point still stands about the houghton mifflin content @ answers.com/Populism (http://www.answers.com/Populism) being pretty excellent, and worth finding its way into the article. I think we need to make it clear in the article that this word means rather different things to different people, rather than being some sort of objective term. Sam Spade 18:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Second sentence
I've changed the second sentence—problematized it, so it no longer contradicts the first and third. Sorry if the paragraph represented some delicate balance of consensus, but it just didn't seem coherent to me. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not really, and altho I don't prefer your wording, I don't feel strongly enough about it to do anything. At somepoint someone will probably completely rewrite the intro, which could well be for the best. Sam Spade 18:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)