Can Wealthy Ivy League Elites buy Populism?

[Felya]

You kind of write your answer to why wealth and populism mix well, or at least coexist rather peacefully, in today's society.

That’s a plutocrat, not a populist... words have meaning...

- - - Updated - - -

No, and why would we? Populism isn't a virtue and isn't a trait that you would like to keep for "your guys" and if you would like to that says a lot

You can’t be a wealthy elite and a populist... that’s a grifter...

[Edge-]

You can’t be a wealthy elite and a populist... that’s a grifter...

Peter Thiel and the Mercers know the problems of the common man. They experience them every day. Needing to remember to tell your house-staff to pick up another half dozen eggs at the store because you're out of them for your eggwhite omlette that you have to prepare for yourself because your damned cook got herself knocked up and the state is mandating that she have some silly "maternity leave" to pop a little maggot out.

I mean, the driver is off too because he's married to the cook, so now your house staff has to be trusted to take one of your cars and you can't be so sure that those poors won't ruin it or steal it.

[PC2]

Can Wealthy Ivy League Elites buy Populism?

Maybe temporarily but the better question is whether populist policies work and if they're beneficial to society. If the policies are bad then simply explain to "ordinary" people why there bad so that they don't gain any support. Viewing democracy as a cynical battle between competing interest groups in a zero sum game just sets up society for an endless conflict when in reality democracy is about figuring out which of the policies about the same topic is the correct policy for everyone.

[Felya]

Maybe temporarily but the better question is whether populist policies work and if they're beneficial to society. If the policies are bad then simply explain to "ordinary" people why there bad so that they don't gain any support. Viewing democracy as a cynical battle between competing interest groups in a zero sum game just sets up society for an endless conflict when in reality democracy is about figuring out which of the policies about the same topic is the correct policy for everyone.

Populism and democracy are not synonymous...

[jonnysensible]

Maybe temporarily but the better question is whether populist policies work and if they're beneficial to society. If the policies are bad then simply explain to "ordinary" people why there bad so that they don't gain any support. Viewing democracy as a cynical battle between competing interest groups in a zero sum game just sets up society for an endless conflict when in reality democracy is about figuring out which of the policies about the same topic is the correct policy for everyone.

*stares in capitalism*

[Elegiac]

a cynical battle between competing interest groups in a zero sum game just sets up society for an endless conflict

Alexa, what is capitalism.

[PC2]

Populism and democracy are not synonymous...

I know but populists use democracy and politics to pit "ordinary" people versus some elite group. I don't know why people think it's any less justified than socialists pitting workers against business owners. Ordinary people are workers. It's pure cynicism and basically a denial that there is a policy that can be recognized as fair by each side.

[Elegiac]

I know but populists use democracy and politics to pit "ordinary" people versus some elite group. I don't know why people think it's any less justified than socialists pitting workers against business owners.

Mainly because a whole lot of people that call themselves "populists" aren't actually targeting the elite, but instead targeting marginalized groups by claiming said groups pose an existential threat to society or to other groups that are marginalized.

See: "Populist" elites ginning up xenophobia against a marginalized group (immigrants) by claiming that said marginalized group is harming another marginalized group (workers).

[tehdang]

I really wish people had a better understanding of how Trump won in 2016:
*He took Romney and McCains existing voter base.
*Add population growth over 2008 and 2012.
*Rely on voter suppression and the electoral college to barely squeeze out a victory.

Trump did nothing almost new or innovative in his campaign. He ran on nothing more than the white griev-, I mean, populism that the GOP has been using for the past 50 years.

The only thing Trump did was use negative press to save a few bucks on his campaign spending. CNN did more for Trump than Fox ever did.

He won states that Democrats hadn't lost since before you were born. He flipped more counties that voted Obama twice than anyone thought possible. The message appealed, and for what it's worth, Clinton's did not appeal. But I'm not on a one-man crusade to change the mind of everyone that has grossly misinformed opinions about recent politics, so don't expect an absolute ton of effort here.

Yeah, no. This narrative breaks down the instant you bring up hip-hop and rapper opulence around Republicans.

Trumpism is a fascist movement using populist messaging like fascists often do. Sometimes they even use leftist messaging, but then again North Korea also calls itself a Democratic Republic and Kashi calls itself cereal.

I really doubt people appreciating Trump's populist message and return to American greatness really had deep qualms about wealthy rappers that went Trump (and, lest we forget, almost every wealthy recording artist vocally endorsed Hillary, and the same with wealthy movie actors contributing their endorsements and mounting campaign stages and recording movies).

That’s a plutocrat, not a populist... words have meaning...

Re-read OP. He wants an end to calling "wealthy guys with Ivy League degrees" populists. Posts have meaning, and responses should be viewed in the context of the post they were responding to.

Maybe temporarily but the better question is whether populist policies work and if they're beneficial to society. If the policies are bad then simply explain to "ordinary" people why there bad so that they don't gain any support. Viewing democracy as a cynical battle between competing interest groups in a zero sum game just sets up society for an endless conflict when in reality democracy is about figuring out which of the policies about the same topic is the correct policy for everyone.

Populist policies generally suck hard. They tend to be short-term, and don't really have staying power generally. It was all very well and good to see elites channeling their political power into enriching themselves and making them feel morally good about themselves -- and to pull the alarm on that shit -- but what follows rarely is worth having as a lasting alternative.

And frankly, the majority of this forum views the struggle against populism (inasmuch as people can admit something close to that) as something existential, a we-win-they-lose political war, which is close to your zero sum game. I'll give a mild allowance that people think if they can just force the stupid, regressive racists to renounce their political ideology and start believing their enlightened politics, then it would be better for everyone ... force feeding the other half of the country good medicine against their will, if you can catch my drift. (I'm interested specifically if PC2 has some nuanced opinion on that topic)

[Elegiac]

I really doubt people appreciating Trump's populist message and return to American greatness really had deep qualms about wealthy rappers that went Trump

"We let them in because they're one of the good ones" is the "I have a Black friend" excuse, hun. Doesn't change the fact that crowd's supposed appreciation for the pillars of American mythology only goes skin deep, literally. I bring up hip-hop and rap opulence because it's very much representative of the rags to riches story that forms part of that mythos, but is still looked down upon in Trumpist and conservative circles because "a return to American greatness" isn't actually about empowering the people, it's fundamentally a reactionary movement to try and reverse the social and economic gains minorities have made in the past half century.

[Ivanstone]

He won states that Democrats hadn't lost since before you were born. He flipped more counties that voted Obama twice than anyone thought possible. The message appealed, and for what it's worth, Clinton's did not appeal. But I'm not on a one-man crusade to change the mind of everyone that has grossly misinformed opinions about recent politics, so don't expect an absolute ton of effort here.

If his message appealed he would've done better than population growth. The US population increased by ~3% and he gained ~3% votes over Romney. He did the usual GOP schtick just louder and dumber. Flipping a few counties here and there is irrelevant.

The US generally has low voter turnouts (~55%) and widespread voter suppression on top of that. Hilary lost a small amount votes versus Obama but that doesn't mean Trump was more appealing. It means that a bunch of Obama voters stayed home. Why did they stay home? Voter suppression is one. Hilary could've also done a better job campaigning and been more appealing.

[Felya]

I know but populists use democracy and politics to pit "ordinary" people versus some elite group. I don't know why people think it's any less justified than socialists pitting workers against business owners. Ordinary people are workers. It's pure cynicism and basically a denial that there is a policy that can be recognized as fair by each side.

Uhm... hating elites, just because they are elites... is not the same as conflict between workers and employers.

- - - Updated - - -

Re-read OP. He wants an end to calling "wealthy guys with Ivy League degrees" populists. Posts have meaning, and responses should be viewed in the context of the post they were responding to.

No, that isn’t context, that’s being wrong. You are calling plutocrats, populist... which is the opposite of its meaning, regardless of context. The OP is about grifters... I am not playing along with the grift, nor is the grift a context.

[Gestopft]

He won states that Democrats hadn't lost since before you were born.

*Takes a look at Wisconsin*

Huh, Trump got fewer votes there than Romney.

*Checks Obama's numbers vs. Clinton's*

Ah, that makes sense.

[tehdang]

If his message appealed he would've done better than population growth. The US population increased by ~3% and he gained ~3% votes over Romney. He did the usual GOP schtick just louder and dumber. Flipping a few counties here and there is irrelevant.

The US generally has low voter turnouts (~55%) and widespread voter suppression on top of that. Hilary lost a small amount votes versus Obama but that doesn't mean Trump was more appealing. It means that a bunch of Obama voters stayed home. Why did they stay home? Voter suppression is one. Hilary could've also done a better job campaigning and been more appealing.

You're saying things fully against the individual district data. Distinct individuals switched their votes, others stayed home. The Obama-Obama-Trump counties were not victims of evil suppression efforts. I'm not suggesting that Trump didn't turn off Republican voters in blue states, it definitely did judging from results in places like Orange County, California, but those just so happened to be in states Republicans weren't going to win anyways. I appreciate the effort though. It was by no means a sound beating, though his message appealed to enough voters in enough states that mattered to give Trump the victory.

Also more of a math point than anything else, but if a country's pop grows by 3%, if current vote splits/voting-by-age splits/registration splits hold, a 50-50 election would lead each side's growth to something like 1.5% growth a piece.

*Takes a look at Wisconsin*

Huh, Trump got fewer votes there than Romney.

*Checks Obama's numbers vs. Clinton's*

Ah, that makes sense.

Not held up across all the states, hence Trump beating Romney's total by 2 million, and Clinton only underperforming Obama by ~60k.

[Ivanstone]

You're saying things fully against the individual district data. Distinct individuals switched their votes, others stayed home. The Obama-Obama-Trump counties were not victims of evil suppression efforts. I'm not suggesting that Trump didn't turn off Republican voters in blue states, it definitely did judging from results in places like Orange County, California, but those just so happened to be in states Republicans weren't going to win anyways. I appreciate the effort though. It was by no means a sound beating, though his message appealed to enough voters in enough states that mattered to give Trump the victory.

No, I’m not. The counties that flipped are still a small minority of the total voting population and when you have 45% of the population not showing up that leaves plenty of room for people with highly partisan politics that need to be compelled to vote. Trump got a few coach potatoes to show up in 2016. Hillary failed to compel enough left leaning couch potatoes to vote for her. Furthermore, a lot of those flipped counties are in voter suppression states.

Trump got 80% of all counties and still lost the popular vote. That’s another reason why counties are meaningless.

[Machismo]

You're saying things fully against the individual district data. Distinct individuals switched their votes, others stayed home. The Obama-Obama-Trump counties were not victims of evil suppression efforts. I'm not suggesting that Trump didn't turn off Republican voters in blue states, it definitely did judging from results in places like Orange County, California, but those just so happened to be in states Republicans weren't going to win anyways. I appreciate the effort though. It was by no means a sound beating, though his message appealed to enough voters in enough states that mattered to give Trump the victory.

Also more of a math point than anything else, but if a country's pop grows by 3%, if current vote splits/voting-by-age splits/registration splits hold, a 50-50 election would lead each side's growth to something like 1.5% growth a piece.

Not held up across all the states, hence Trump beating Romney's total by 2 million, and Clinton only underperforming Trump by ~60k.

No, your math is wrong...

If the population grows by 3%, then each "50%" would also increase by 3% of its previous total.

It's a shame Trumpsters don't think America is great.

[tehdang]

No, your math is wrong...

If the population grows by 3%, then each "50%" would also increase by 3% of its previous total.

It's a shame Trumpsters don't think America is great.

I see what he's doing now, and you're right

- - - Updated - - -

No, I’m not. The counties that flipped are still a small minority of the total voting population and when you have 45% of the population not showing up that leaves plenty of room for people with highly partisan politics that need to be compelled to vote. Trump got a few coach potatoes to show up in 2016. Hillary failed to compel enough left leaning couch potatoes to vote for her. Furthermore, a lot of those flipped counties are in voter suppression states.

Trump got 80% of all counties and still lost the popular vote. That’s another reason why counties are meaningless.

It sounds like you're admitting the point, only coloring it with opinion commentary: "compelled to vote" "coach potatoes." His message resonated and he won the election. Though Hillary also tried a populist message (see her campaign speeches), it didn't fly quite as well. Bigger numbers in California and New York notwithstanding.

Don't try putting Dem youth apathy as Republican's fault.

[Felya]

Don't try putting Dem youth apathy as Republican's fault.

Steve Bannon said numerous times that the success of Trump was in his targeting apathetic youth online. The guy was a gold seller in WoW, before becoming Trump’s creator.

[Ivanstone]

It sounds like you're admitting the point, only coloring it with opinion commentary: "compelled to vote" "coach potatoes." His message resonated and he won the election. Though Hillary also tried a populist message (see her campaign speeches), it didn't fly quite as well. Bigger numbers in California and New York notwithstanding.

Don't try putting Dem youth apathy as Republican's fault.

Dem apathy is a recurring problem. Note the difference between 2008 and 2012. Romney had population growth over McCain's turn out. Obama lost 4 million votes. That doesn't mean Romney had a better message, it just means that Obama wasn't good enough. Similarly, that doesn't mean Trump's "message" resonated. He had a pre-set voting block and they showed up. Nothing more.

Voter suppression is still a thing and has been for a long time. The Dem's just need to be much more aggressive about getting out the vote.