"It just requires thought, or even the effort to get out to the heartland and talk to people. When I’ve done that I’ve generally found Trump supporters to be agents rather than victims. They’ve not been seduced by 'populism.' They are not 'populists.' They have few illusions about the president. They think he’s a loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic. They like the way he’s an outsider and 'tells it like it is.' They wanted disruption of what they saw as a rigged system; he delivers it, daily. Jan-Werner Muller, professor of politics at Princeton University,
has written in The Guardian, 'The profile of supporters of populism obviously matters, but it is patronizing to reduce all they think and say to resentment, and explain the entire phenomenon as an inarticulate political expression of the Trumpenproletariat and its European equivalents.' For me, the key word here is 'patronizing.' Liberal contempt is rampant."
From
"It’s Time to Depopularize ‘Populist’" by Roger Cohen (NYT).
I selected the quote you see above, but now I'm reading the comments at the NYT, and they seem to be fixated on something else:
It’s critical to distinguish between a nationalist xenophobe and a reasonable voter who has made the plausible choice that Trump was a better option than other candidates....
They're all "PLAUSIBLE!!!!?!!"
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
Resentful losers projecting own resentment onto others ... Failure to cope.
They have few illusions about the president. They think he’s a loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic.
Trump is calculating and hardly driven by emotion of any kind.
He just happens to know how the MSM works and how to play it.
So says Roger Cohen apologist for the Iranian regime and stigmatized of Israel,
Was there a finer thing than when Trump ruined McCain's war hero act.
A "grandstand that, you moron" moment.
Who told these fools that we have to justify our vote to them?
I have no patience for the "PLAUSIBLE!!!!?!!" people on either side. I didn't vote for either major party candidate, but I understand those who chose what they felt was the lesser evil. Cohen seems to recognize that lots of Trump voters did exactly that. Iknow lots of Hillary voters who did the same. Social media (and the Times comments section) tends to amplify the true believers. It's a shame really.
I got this far.
It derives its anti-establishment energy from the notion that nothing should stand in the way of an all-powerful popular will, including liberal democratic institutions with their checks and balances (an independent press and a judiciary, for example) contrived by elites.
So, "Populism" is against "checks and balances?" What if the checks and balances were on display by Mr Strzok yesterday?
They really don't understand. "Liberal" no longer means what it did 150 years ago.
Also, as an example of "elite" competence, I am a subscriber to the NY Times but I got a notice in that article that I only have one more "free" article to read this month. Good to know.
"Liberal" no longer means what it meant 50 years ago.
As long as they think nationalist is a slur they will continue to lose power. Trump is simply looking out for the best interests of the US and all its citizens. He isn't a globalist and sees trade agreements through a nationalist lens. Globalist want the free flow of people and goods because it enriches them, at the expense of the working and middle-class people in developed countries. Not because of some high-minded concern for the enrichment of poorer nations. They see people as interchangeable units whose sole utility is economic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQXAqP6ReqY
Obama, at least, has been all about correctly using populist for a few years. Though, a few years ago, "populist" was a GOOD THING, because Obama was one.
Funny how words always suddenly become bad things when applied to Republicans instead of Democrats.
The not so subtle narrative of Trump populism is “poorly educated, angry white vote in boorish, racist rich guy to get some love and government dollars for them.”
It would be racist to suggest that such a narrative would well explain why politicians such as John Conyers or Maxine Waters get re-elected over and over again.
Here's the Atlantic reminding us of a time "populist" was a good thing. Even Cohen's NYT had a period of time it liked populism.
Here's my theory.
The left lost on the "right is Naziism" push quickly when it turned out that the left was violently protesting a Jewish Republican and a gay conservative. So, they tried "the right is fascist" push, which also failed because, again, they used violent protests against extremeists. They tried "the right is nationalistic!" but, that again, turned into a problem because people understood the actual white nationalists to be radically different from a policy of putting American interests front and center, or at least, not automatically acquiescing to foreign powers. So, the new codeword for "The right is completely punchable" is going to be "they're populists!"
"loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic."
Zzzzzzz. Needs more sizzle. Zzzzzz.
For a right-of-center take, I encourage everyone to check out https://www.c-span.org/video/?439238-1/vox-populi (It's a panel, not just Kimball). There's nothing tremendously visual, so you can also listen to it whilst doing something else...
Wasn't it a Populist who solved Xenophobe's Paradox?
"ICE can never catch the Honduran, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."
Blogger Michael K said...
"Liberal" no longer means what it did 150 years ago.
Yup, has to be adjectivized with the word "classical", though if you look up just plain liberal in Wikipedia the article starts thus:
"A supporter of liberalism, a political philosophy founded on ideas of liberty and equality "
Overall a pretty honest article, so kudos to them for getting it right.
Milton Friedman was once called a "conservative" by the Wall Street Journal. He got them to print a retraction explaining that he was not a conservative but a "liberal". He too objected to the need to use "classical" as a modifier. See also his 1963 (or so) book on Capitalism.
"Liberal" was being used to mean "Almost the exact opposite of its true meaning" (Hayek, Road to Serfdom, quote from memory)in the 1940's
Even the people who used to mis-call themselves "liberals" have moved away from the term. They now seem to prefer "fascist". Oops, I mean its synonym "progressive"
John Henry
"Resort to the populist label is synonymous with dismissal. It reflects the superior view that the deluded plebes — seldom encountered in person — have got it wrong. It flirts with disrespect of democracy. Sometimes it reflects a grudging acknowledgment that these days populism equals political effectiveness — so we, the liberal victims of its power, need to find our own “populist” message."
-- Liberal victims of its power? Find our own "populist message?" Hasn't that been what they've been doing for more than a decade with identity politics pitting the 99% against the 1%? I mean, I get that Cohen wants to reclaim the word and give it meaning, but, the poorly understood and very basic explanation of populism is the definition of the most basic left-wing political strategy.
I feel like we could have solved this a lot better if Cohen had just said: "Populism has a very broad definition, so try not to let your denotation interfere with its connotation."
Instead, we got this muck.
Cohen must be wrong. If he were right, then Trump would be a “normal” President supported by “normal” voters. Where would that leave the “Resistance”?
"Intellectuals hate progress. Intellectuals who call themselves 'progressive'" really hate progress." -- Pinker, "Enlightenment Now".
The current mood is anti-elite, which is probably best summed up by the word "vulgar", as that word applies not only to the ordinary masses, but also the common language, popular opinion, and the distinct lack of the stuffy pedigree of the rich and powerful.
The reason Donald Trump succeeds at being a man of the people despite being one of the richest men in the country is because he is vulgar. Everything about his presentation screams it - the coarse language, the confrontational attitude, the ability to understand the popular mood and to speak in words that connect with it (direct, non-PC, no politician-speak with lots of flowery rhetoric but zero substance), the very fact that he is not one of the "in" crowd in New York and Washington and has been rejected by the societal elite.
Honestly, the best way to have shattered Trump's image in this regard would have been for his opponents to play nice and cozy with him and project the image that he was really one of the elites after all. Instead of two years of constant disagreement, attacks, and investigations, two years of fawning press coverage, getting along chummy with Congress, and being adored by Hollywood/New York/DC would have done much more to damage Trump's standing among his voters than anything they've yet tried.
Trump is a normal and authentic American, like the majority of Americans, and the cretins at the NYT can’t stand that new technologies like the Internet have made it impossible for them, a minority of the population, to control us any longer.
It’s why they want to Title II the Internet - so they can institute a fairness doctrine and impose common sense hate speech regulation.
Felonia Von Pantsuit won the popular vote, but not the 'elite' electoral vote
They wanted disruption of what they saw as a rigged system ...
And journalists make their living helping to rig the system so it’s not like they’re eager to see disruptive change.
"It’s Time to Depopularize ‘Populist’"
Our word is polling badly against Trump and it also shows the Dems aren't really with "the people".
Time for a sober NYT article on word usage and a Soros-funded messaging pivot.
It’s a better and more realistic article than usual, for the NYT.
The most important bit is the acknowledgement that they (the self-defined elite that the writer implicitly addresses, itself condescension, as if he had no other readers), are agents, not victims of demagogues.
The modern political argument is between tribes and castes, not individuals.
I don’t see a messaging pivot here.
It’s more than a bit of balloon-puncturing.
More of this is necessary if there is going to be a social peace.
I share your tiredness, Ann. After anyone starts putting up couple of anti-Trump memes I unfollow, but not unfriend, them. It saves me a lot of aggravation. These are people I get along with in person, but their relentless political raging on facebook makes me lose respect for them. I unfollow them to protect our relationship.
More of this is necessary if there is going to be a social peace.
Do you think that would be helpful to the NYT?
The NYT is an instrument in the orchestra, not the conductor, and certainly not the the composer or impresario.
The NYT has no interests independent of its owners, or the owners of its owners.
How do explain the popularity of pimple popping: pimplepopulism?
Dr. Pimple Popper Launched a Pus-Shooting Board Game and Dear God, I’m Not OK
They wanted disruption of what they saw as a rigged system
Similarly I think Micheal Moore was right about the Joe Blows and Billy Blows wanting to blow up the system. But Moore also predicted we'd regret it. Still waiting for that part.
It certainly is convenient for you that your fellow citizens are all racists — otherwise you would need to persuade them, or at least compromise with them.
"For me, the key word here is 'patronizing.' Liberal contempt is rampant."
This is the basis for a potential explosion. Contempt is the hardest attitude among people to dislodge, because the contemptuous party is feeding off the feeling of superiority and will simply shift ground if shown that the original belief is unjustified.
Popularism is bad when the people populating the populace in question are deplorable.
They are losing the semantic game. To be fair, classical liberals a.k.a. "libertarians", and classical liberals tempered by Judeo-Christian philosophy a.k.a. [American] conservatives, have recovered ground in a game they had all but lost on the "popular" front.
Liberal is divergent.
Progressive is monotonic.
Conservative... principles matter.
This is an interesting post, Althouse.
My initial thought, before reading any comments was twofold. First, I wondered, when has Althouse ever posted much commentary about Trump actually being “A loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic?” Never, as far as I can recall. The near-constant Althouse theme is that those views of Trump are mistaken and evidence of some kind of Trump Derangement Syndrome. And that Trump is not any of those things, but rather Trump is clever and calculating at a higher level.
My second thought was similar; Roger Cohen’s theme in this column is that because Trump fans are fully cognizant and aware that Trump is “a loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic,” they should get credit, and not be patronized; They are intelligent, rational decision makers who voted for Trump because, I suppose, they wanted a lot of Brett Kavanughs and no more Elena Kagans on the Supreme Court.
But that isn’t what I customarily see with Althouse commenters. With some exceptions, the general fight from TrumpWorld is that Trump is none of those things.
And it obviously didn’t take long — like, the second comment— to get to that contention here.
I gotta say; I have considerable sympathy for the idea of “the rational Trump voter.” I consider myself one. But whereas I am someone who is more than willing to say just exactly how much Trump really is “a loose cannon, needy, narcissistic, erratic,” I don’t see very many others who say the same.
And I must say, I have never seen Trump as someone who “tells it like it is.” I know that Trump says a lot of stuff. Much of it untrue, and for effect. Some of it pure lies. Some of it a kind of bland salesmanship that means whatever listeners want it to mean. Trump does all of that. But that is not “telling it like it is.”
I know that Trump says a lot of stuff. Much of it untrue, and for effect. Some of it pure lies.
Examples?
Leave chuck alone. He is having problems with all he winning.
Chuck: An example is when Trump said, during the campaign and "women's rights" came up - Trump said something to the effect of: "Women's rights? They've got more rights than men do. They have it better than us!"
That's telling a truth, not blowing smoke up somebody's skirt. He's almost more of a comedian, in that sense, than he is a politician - a truth teller. King Lear's Jester.
It's funny, because it's true!
There's nothing really "populist" about Trump.
"Populist" is just a word the elite uses when they dislike someone.
William J. Bryant was a "populist". TR in 1912 stole his issues, but was not a populist.
George Wallace was a "populist" but how often was he called one?
Trump is Billionaire Republican, who just wants to enforce the immigration laws, negotiate good trade deals, and have an America First Foreign policy.
To the Globalists that's heresy. But its just common sense.
A small number of people in LA, Manhattan and DC, have a vise-grip on "the Megaphone". So we all see political reality through their eyes.
I thought that would change with the internet, but it really hasn't had much effect.
Darkisland said...
Blogger Michael K said...
"Liberal" no longer means what it did 150 years ago.
Yup, has to be adjectivized with the word "classical", though if you look up just plain liberal in Wikipedia the article starts thus:
"A supporter of liberalism, a political philosophy founded on ideas of liberty and equality "
Since this is one of my soap boxes I just want to add a couple words to that entry:
ideas of liberty and equality of opportunity
The problems start when the government tries to fix outcomes.
I prefer Patriot.
Populismus delenda est?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा