Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The post-Brexit & post-Trump (etc.) “populism” canard

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

It seems the impact of Brexit followed by Trump [= “Amer-exit” ?] is stirring up a sharp reaction in global halls of power, leading for instance to resort to a loaded, one-word, barbed dismissal of the presumed ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked masses:

 

populism_bloomberg

U/D: Let’s add a clip on the wave of upcoming elections in Europe:

euro_electionz_wave

Thus, we see in the just linked and clipped Bloomberg report:

>>The rise of populism in developed nations is tearing at the political fabric of Europe, unsettling markets and undermining growth prospects, top European bankers said in Frankfurt on Friday.

“The uncertainty in the market, especially the political and economic instability, has never been as pronounced as it is today,’’ Commerzbank AG Martin Zielke said at the annual European Banking Congress. “We don’t want to go down the path of nationalism.’’

Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the U.S. presidential elections have fueled concerns that nationalism and populism are gaining a dimension that may turn anti-EU parties into a dominant force across the continent. The Dec. 4 constitutional referendum in Italy and elections in France and Germany next year will be a measure  of how destabilizing the surge may be, the bankers said.>>

Of course, some context-aware decoding is — regrettably — in order: for “populism” read demagoguery, and for “nationalism” read national socialism, aka [neo-]nazism, with outbreaks of “racism” or “sexism” carrying much the same import. (Especially, where a crowd of ordinary, casually dressed Americans standing with hands over hearts is likely to be for singing the US National Anthem U/D: or saying the national pledge]. The “optics” chosen for the voice-over definition by a Bloomberg journalist with an Australian accent is highly, and not favourably, suggestive.)

Pardon, but the point of democratic elections — starting with the classic twelve-member jury of peers — is that, often, the collective wisdom of ordinary people is a pivotal check on the power of elites and their manipulative agendas. Yes, such elections may not be pretty or genteel, but on average they are better than the alternative, unchecked elites that are too often self-selecting and ideologically blinded to the painful realities of the ordinary person.

Likewise, patriotism is a virtue not a vice.

Nor, should it be implicitly easily equated to or cast as being on a slippery slope leading to the follies of nazism or racism or the like (whether using coded language or using outright accusations); that is a manifestation of stunning, utterly revealing disrespect and prejudice.

In the UK, it is largely Labour strongholds that delivered Brexit. In the US, many of the same rust belt states that backed Obama picked Trump over Clinton in a forced choice of the lesser danger of by and large un-liked, high-risk candidates.  In both cases a slap in the face was delivered to the elites and their favoured agendas.

A wise path would be to reflect on needed reforms.

Not, doubling down on contempt for the ordinary man.

As to economic woes, I suggest the Bankers — should that, per tit for tat, be: “banksters” (See how it hurts? Please drop the name-calling and dog-whistle Newspeak hints)  — would be well advised to ponder an Austrian perspective on policy manipulation led, financially induced malinvestment bubble-based booms that have shattering impacts when they go bust:

hayek_triangle_macro

That is:

mal_bust

(It is no surprise that the world economy has struggled since 2007 – 9, given malinvestment bubbles that popped. To pull us out of an obvious generational, long wave trough, we need a cluster of breakthrough technologies that are probably likely to be stifled or hobbled by unchecked, over-zealous bureaucrats who almost always imply omniscience and omni-benevolence on their part., ICTs, Energy, biotech, robotics and mechatronics etc., are possible candidates.)

However, there are underlying themes of quite direct relevance to the focal concerns of the ID community.

First, there is the problem of domineering, agenda-driven elites who often despise and seek to manipulate the public.

Linked, there is the problem of mainstream media houses and leading voices that too often serve as the propaganda arm of the elites.

We see the pattern of trolls and agit-prop activists that haunt alternative media in an attempt to taint, divert, confuse and frustrate serious discussion of alternatives.

There is a worrying underlying sense that evolutionary materialism is sapping respect for and recognition of the pivotal importance of responsible rational freedom in serious discussions.

There seems to be an underlying perception that those who do not toe the party-line are ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked.

The utter bigotry in that sort of sneering contempt seems to escape the attention of far too many.

The haunting question of Internet censorship is rearing its ugly head.

The overlap of elite groups, interests and institutions is not to be overlooked.

The degree of ruthlessness already seen is not to be overlooked also.

Where, no, design thought is not a mere manifestation of populist stupidity and resentment at the intellectual achievements of our betters.

And, more.

We are in a clearly dangerous time, and should proceed with caution:

change_challBut, are we willing to heed warning signs, given:

Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .
Of Lemmings, marches of folly and cliffs of self-falsifying absurdity . . .

There is reason to be deeply concerned.

Ideas and dominating ideologies have consequences. END

Comments
Dave S., I think the media's preferred candidate wasn't Trump this time, it was Jeb Bush. They failed. They hadn't counted on Trump being successful. In fact, many in the MSM laughed at the prospect of a serious Trump candidacy.CannuckianYankee
November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
CY, A quote from #8:
It is obvious that the major media---in effect one party with printer’s ink stained fingers---and their backers have for several election cycles worked towards having a preferred Republican opponent in the primaries then held some sort of attack strategy meant to break him in the main election.
The part I'm skeptical about is, in this election, the major media choosing to promote Trump during the primaries. Did CNN, the NYT, etc., do this?daveS
November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Dave S. "But is this theory more or less obviously true than the theory proposed in #8? I don’t know." Well, I think you should know, because given evidence from the Project Veritas videos and the DNC and Podesta emails leaked by Wikileaks, the conspiracy that KF mentions at 8 is precisely what was going on. The Democrats have conspired to throw elections by any and all means possible; and all indicators are that this has been going on for quite a long time. The main tactic is to collude with certain media organizations: CNN in particular, but probably not limited to them. And in the Project Veritas expose, they intentionally tried to make Trump's rallies seem violent and out of control, by planting paid agitators outside the rallies to feign injury, or even to physically attack Trump supporters. Brandon Darby, a former leftist, reported a certain attempt by leftists to throw molotov coctails into a crowd at the 2008 Republican convention. Darby now works for Breitbart Texas. It was Democrats who attempted to demonize Darby, and the media; particularly, PBS, colluded with them in an attack on his character. Project Veritas has also exposed Democratic operatives' attempts to commit voter fraud by bussing voters into certain districts in order to increase Democratic victories. Of course, the media again has attempted to demonize Project Veritas, even though their videos have resulted in the resignations and firings of several conspirators. So this sort of tactic has been going on for quite some time, and it isn't limited to the Clinton campaign. The driving force behind these tactics, of course are exactly what KF has been saying over several years; the Alinsky-induced rules for radicals driven by greed for power and an elicit presumption that "might makes right," and that the ends justify the means. So no, the theory is not more or less obviously true. It is obviously false. Trump was attacked in similar ways that McCain and Romney were attacked. Nothing's changed, except that Trump prevailed over the attacks, because eventually the electorate saw what was happening behind the scenes, thanks to organizations like Wikileaks and Project Veritas.CannuckianYankee
November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
KF, "This is the exact fault I first found with the Bloomberg report and such an approach of undue polarisation speaks inadvertent volumes to a subtext of contempt, hostility and demonisation of the other in a democratic polity that are all too telling given Saul Alinsky’s teachings and those of the wider Cultural Marxists." I saw a certain dynamic of polarization in many comments in the "disqus" app on Breitbart and other online forums during the primary period. Republicans were attacking one another over certain issues. Even some conservative publications were dividing on populist lines. Several prominent columnists were driven from Breitbart as the result of Trump's emergence, largely due to opposing Trump; and Breitbart became the central publication for all things Trump. Cruz was fiercely attacked at Breitbart following Trump's emergence. It started with anti-globalism, I believe; which is why Ted Cruz was pushed aside and demonized. Those who supported Cruz (I was one of them), could not make a case against the very prevalent anti-globalism; even when there were other issues that seemed more pressing. If Trump had not been in the race, Cruz would have won. But I doubt very strongly that he would have won the general election. What would have happened is that Bernie Sanders would have emerged among the Democrats, and probably would have won the general, since globalism was the central demonized issue, and Bernie, not Clinton, was the anti-globalist champion, without Trump in the picture. Incidentally, many Bernie supporters ended up voting for Trump. So the GOP has now largely changed from a globalist party, to an unknown, driven by fear of the inevitable Trump victory; not only in the election, but in policy as is already seen by world and corporate leaders scrambling to align themselves with the change. Ford is no longer moving its plant in Kentucky to Mexico. Canada and Mexico have agreed to work with Trump to reform NAFTA; Russia is welcoming new cooperation with the US. The one big issue that caused so many Evangelicals to support Trump (more so than with Romney in 2012), I believe, was his promise to appoint pro-life judges to the bench, and to appoint a Scalia-esque justice to the Supreme Court. But there was no signal prior to the campaign cycle that indicated Trump even cared about pro-life issues. It simply emerged as a result of Trump's desire to appeal to many differing factions within the party. And I think "populism" emerged as Trump supporters began to realize that he wasn't exactly a conservative. I'm not certain of all the factors that led to this emergence, but it is clear to me that Trump tried to pass himself off as a conservative to begin with, and when that failed, and the contradictions were exposed, he grasped onto the populist sentiments, which were already prevalent among certain factions within the party. Trump was elected as the lesser of two evils; as the anti-Clinton, who had her own skeletons in the closet. Many conservatives are now saying that World War III was diverted by electing Trump; since Clinton had been speaking about standing up to the Russians in terms that seemed overly aggressive; which was also seen as a change in her position, when she had told Putin years prior, that there was a certain "reset button." The email scandal and the scandal surrounding the Clinton Foundation: two issues that I believe are interrelated; emerged together towards the end of the campaign cycle. Pundits theorized that Clinton used a private email server to hide communications surrounding the foundation; antics exposed in Breitbart author Peter Schweizer's polemic expose on the Foundation; "Clinton Cash." The perception was that the 33,000 missing emails were specifically those Foundation related communications. That remains to be seen of course, but it is a good explanation of motive. Thus, Hillary, who seemed to have the momentum going into the last week of the election, lost support due to the FBI announcement that it would continue a criminal probe of her emails, after having investigated Anthony Wiener, the husband of Clinton's assistant, Huma Abedin, on an unrelated issue involving his texting naked pictures of himself to an underage girl. The FBI then stating 2-3 days prior to the election that it had found nothing significant in emails discovered on Anthony Weiner's laptop; was not enough to swing the electorate in her favor. The damage had been done; and in my view, rightly so. I'm not certain what to make of the election of Donald Trump. I was elated that Clinton was out, and that the Clintons' dominance in American politics had ended. The Trump presidency may prove to be a great period in American prosperity and world influence. We don't know. Indicators are all we have; and right now, some indicators show that positive change is on the horizon, despite the personality flaws of the change agent.CannuckianYankee
November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
CannuckianYankee, Let me clarify that I don't hold to the theory that Trump was trying to lose the election. I did notice quite a bit of internet chatter about it, however, and google indicates that several major "journalism" outfits also picked up on the idea. But is this theory more or less obviously true than the theory proposed in #8? I don't know. Here are the Republican candidates for president in 2008 and 2012. It seems to me that in both cases, the eventual nominee was a very logical choice and didn't need assistance from the major media. As for Trump in the most recent election, did the major media try to assist him in getting the nomination? It didn't look that way to me.daveS
November 20, 2016
November
11
Nov
20
20
2016
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Clinton was an appalling choice for Democrats and Trump successfully appealed to people's fears, vanities, and predjudices. When you have young liberal twits yelling 'white privallige', and Virginian coalminers out of work and struggling, they rightly say, 'to hell with you!' These white coal miners have white daughters and wives, and sweet hearts who love their men, feel their pain, and loath Clinton; Hell, I'd vote for Trump if I had these university nut jobs telling me my thinking is wrong too. I do however know that Trump is an embarassment as a human being, he is a mysogynist, he is a rascist, he doesn't care about the working class, he doesn't care about anything but brand Trump. The Affordable Care Act, might be under threat, but the amount of legislation and money required to undo that behemoth is probably beyond Trump's, or Congress's power now. The Supreme Court will be interesting; good luck America.rvb8
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
Dave S, You think post election Trump was surprised at the results? Not according to Steve Bannon, who predicted he would win the rust belt states he won; Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, in particular. Michael Moore, who lives in Michigan, and knows his neighbors well, also predicted that Trump would win big in the rust-belt; which was the key to his victory. The "Daybreak" poll published by the LA Times correctly predicted he would win, but not until a week prior to the election. What threw the other polls off was the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college. Hillary won the popular vote; thus, those polls were all relatively correct. But they measured the wrong element, and I think Bannon knew that. Remember, US presidents are never elected by popular vote. I don't think Trump wanted Hillary to win. I watched many of his huge rallies, where upwards of 15,000 supporters showed up after waiting in the cold for hours, and Trump calling it "not a campaign, but a movement." He also made a 13 state marathon on the last two days of the campaign, after Bannon himself realized that those very same rust-belt states were now in play. Those are not the actions of one who does not intend to win, and win big, and he did just that. Maybe pollsters need to measure the potential electoral college results more carefully in future presidential elections; especially when the numbers are so close. So basing your whole argument on a moment captured in a photograph seems a little silly. Trump surrounded himself with highly intelligent operatives, who intended him to win, and he did.CannuckianYankee
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
KF,
It is obvious that the major media — in effect one party with printer’s ink stained fingers — and their backers have for several election cycles worked towards having a preferred Republican opponent in the primaries then held some sort of attack strategy meant to break him in the main election.
Hmm. It was also "obvious" to some that Trump's plan was to win the Republican nomination so that he could throw the election, thus handing the White House back to Clinton, Inc. This is the moment it finally sunk in that his plan backfired.daveS
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
J-Mac, Again, I insist (speaking as one interested in the good of our civilisation, which depends on the US doing well and doing right), the pivotal issue is that your nation has been reduced to the sort of choice faced on Nov 8th. It is obvious that the major media -- in effect one party with printer's ink stained fingers -- and their backers have for several election cycles worked towards having a preferred Republican opponent in the primaries then held some sort of attack strategy meant to break him in the main election. This time, it did not work as the Rust Belt workers shifted the dynamic, despite the elites of his own party in the main turning on him. As a matter of personal view based on evidence readily in hand, the two candidates chosen were deeply flawed, and the choice thus was lesser of dangerously flawed widely disliked candidates. In effect the Rust Belt workers have bet your nation and our civilisation on an untried person who has never held an executive political office with accountability over policy and results. For the sake of our civilisation, I hope they will prove justified. KFkairosfocus
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, Do you really believe that had Clinton won, things would look much more promising for the 46.5 million Americans on social assistance? How about the financial sector that erased 19.2 trillion from the american economy? Would Clinton prosecute the guilty ones and prevent the financial crisis from happening? You are not naive enough to believe that US=democracy do you?J-Mac
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
Are “democracy” (relabelled “populism”) and “patriotism” (ditto, “nationalism”) now to be regarded as dirty words?
It is eerily enlightening to read what happened when the "populists" (anti-elites) worked together with the "Republicans" (i.e. blacks) in North Carolina in the 1890's From WikiPedia entry on "People's Party"
Fusion in North Carolina[edit] The effects of fusion with the Democrats were disastrous to the Party in the South. The Populist/Republican alliance which had governed North Carolina, the only state in which it had any success, fell apart. By 1898, the Democrats used a violently racist campaign to defeat the North Carolina Populists and GOP, and in 1900 the Democrats ushered in disfranchisement.[13] In 1894-96 the Populist wave of agrarian unrest swept through the cotton and tobacco regions of the South. The most dramatic impact came in North Carolina, where the poor white farmers who comprised the Populist party formed a working coalition with the Republican Party, then largely controlled by blacks in the low country, and poor whites in the mountain districts. They took control of the state legislature in both 1894 and 1896, and the governorship in 1896. Restrictive rules on voting were repealed. In 1895 the Legislature rewarded its black allies with patronage, naming 300 black magistrates in eastern districts, as well as deputy sheriffs and city policemen. They also received some federal patronage from the coalition congressman, and state patronage from the governor.[14] After a Democratic-party orchestrated propaganda campaign in newspapers across the state, the Fusionist revolt in North Carolina collapsed in 1898, and white Democrats returned to power. The white supremacy election campaign of 1898 was brutally successful, and the gains of the populist-Republican coalition were reversed. Practically all blacks lost their vote. The gravity of the crisis was underscored by a major race riot in Wilmington, in 1898, two days after the election. Knowing they had just retaken control of the state legislature, the Democrats were confident they could not be overcome. They attacked and overcame the Fusionists; mobs roamed the black neighborhoods, shooting, killing, burning buildings, and making a special target of the black newspaper.[15] There were no further insurgencies in any Southern states involving a successful black coalition at the state level.
awstar
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Seversky, I had to deal with live Marxists in my youth, including seeing what happened in Grenada, so I first say: dictatorship of the proletariat, and cite a number, north of 100 million murdered by such regimes in the past 100 or so years. In short, the excuse of an imaginary idealisation of the left is dead and utterly discredited by the murderous track record. Second, think about the most critical issue in the US election cycle, being reduced to a choice of that sort (and I will not be drawn into pretending that either was a positive alternative . . . I find the narrow focus on the real, imagined or projected but unwarranted faults of one or the other most telling in itself . . . ), which speaks volumes on where your institutions have gone as a whole, with implications for the civilisation as a whole. Third, I must further suggest to you that with the unwarranted invidious and subtly accusatory comparison to the Nazis and Fascists, you have overstepped bounds of reasonable discussion. This is the exact fault I first found with the Bloomberg report and such an approach of undue polarisation speaks inadvertent volumes to a subtext of contempt, hostility and demonisation of the other in a democratic polity that are all too telling given Saul Alinsky's teachings and those of the wider Cultural Marxists. KF PS: it probably is worth pointing out that the National Socialist German Labour Party and Italy's Fascist Party were only "right" relative to Stalinism, and as the name of the nazis indicates, these were clearly statist, socialistic, politically messianistic ideologies of the left. In an era where even conservative opponents commonly felt the ultimate ideological victory of socialism was an inevitable outcome of history.kairosfocus
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
It's also an inward-looking nationalism versus an outward-looking cosmopolitanism seen as globalization. Yes, socialism and communism can be perverted into authoritarian regimes, although that was not their original purpose. But free market capitalism is what allows the few that know how to work the system to accumulate obscene amounts of wealth at the expense of the rest of us. The sad thing is that, in the US, all the people who have lost out to globalization, turned to exactly the kind of person who is causing it. Trump is a billionaire (allegedly) who has never known a day of poverty or hardship in his life. He deals on a global basis, imports cheap goods and labor from abroad and then complains about others who do the same. He makes grandiose promises that he has no idea how to keep and probably no intention of keeping if he can get away with it. He's all about making money and feeding his own ego. He couldn't give a s**t about the ordinary working folk as long as they buy the bill of goods he's selling. He's almost a secular version of the prosperity gospelers. Like with Brexit, he won because nobody thought he was going to and the opposition screwed up by badly misunderstanding what really worried the electorate. They were left with a choice between what was perceived as a corrupt, elitist establishment that didn't care and a demagogue who sold himself as an outsider who would "drain the swamp". Just as Italy went for Mussolini and Germany went for Hitler in the thirties, the US went for Trump. Now watch out for the hard-right racist thugs Trump is appointing to start using the FBI and Homeland Security as their version of the Gestapo. The FBI has an unsavory history of using its muscle for political purposes and I'm sure there are enough right-wingers in those organizations who would be more than happy to do their biddingSeversky
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, they have a hard time accepting that fellow humans are their equals, not just animals to be farmed or engineered. We tld them but they idn't isten. Eventually, Darwinian naturalism will give them even bigger indigestion.News
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
How did we end up in this "dangerous time"? Using Government to Serve the Interests of the Few This will be enlightening. It is from Forbes magazine: The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest What we have is multinational corporations run by global elites who have turned many of the world's governments into subsidiaries of their corporations. Those governments do not serve the common good of their citizens. Instead they use the coercive power of government and its authority to serve the interests of their "owners." Don't misunderstand: Socialism and communism are idiotic and evil. But truly competitive free enterprise cannot exist when the regulations favor the big international companies and tend to crush their smaller competitors. Get it? This is a complaint about worst case crony capitalism, not an advocacy of socialism. Godless Social Engineering These self-appointed masters of the Universe tend to be atheists. They see the rest of us as their human herd which they must manage according to their atheistic beliefs. They see humanity as merely another collection of atoms, albeit a rather peculiar one, with no purpose and no meaning. So if in managing their herd they decide they must control its population, they happily promote "legal" abortion and kill literally billions across the globe. Morally, this is of no particular consequence to them. Morality doesn't really exist under atheism. These godless social engineers have decided to remake human nature in their own perverted image and likeness. So they successfully push for the pretended legitimization of things like same-sex marriage. Guys who announce they feel like a girl today can follow your wives, sisters and daughters into public bathrooms. According to these godless social engineers gender is all in your mind and has no real meaning. So, what do we do? Well, unless you are content with being a member of their herd, you should become a part of the populist movement. Populism is just another way of saying government of, by and for the people, the primary purpose of which is to protect the inalienable rights of ALL humanity to life and liberty.harry
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
Are "democracy" (relabelled "populism") and "patriotism" (ditto, "nationalism") now to be regarded as dirty words? To the point, where an American crowd standing for their Anthem are to be regarded with patent suspicion and contempt? (Do not overlook the artfully posed shot that exaggerates a cup of soda pop and one of popcorn.)kairosfocus
November 19, 2016
November
11
Nov
19
19
2016
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply