Us-Versus-Them: The Pronouns of Populism
Populism’s pronoun usage taps into the darker elements of the human condition.

In 1939, a 15-year-old Jewish Berliner, Peter Fröhlich, and his family fled their homeland, fearing the virulent antisemitism taking over their country. After a brief stay in Cuba, he safely arrived in the United States in 1941. Upon becoming an American citizen and changing his name, Peter Gay dedicated his life to understanding the violent aggression that forced him to leave his home.
In his magnum opus, The Cultivation of Hatred, Gay writes about how seemingly innocuous Victorian cultural activities, such as the German tradition of mensur (competitive fencing), normalize violence by crafting "alibis" that divert "free-floating pugilistic impulses into socially profitable energies."
One such alibi is the "Convenient Other." As "an immensely serviceable alibi for aggression," the Convenient Other grants "permission to think angry thoughts and commit hostile acts." These seemingly harmless alibis, Gay argues, systematized the bellicosity that inspired World War I and World War II. He continues:
The animus was always the same: whether nation, province, or city, whether religion, class, or culture—the more one loved one's own, the more one was entitled to hate the Other.
As it did in 20th century Europe, this lethal combination of diametrically opposed emotions—love of us and hatred of them—fuels today's culture war.
As I wrote recently, opportunistic politicians often abuse plural pronouns for political purposes. But while some politicians abuse first-person plural pronouns (we and us) to insincerely build a collective identity, others use their third-person counterparts (they and them) to divide and conquer.
Few political trends leverage this love of us and hatred of them more than populism.
The Populist They/Them
Populism is, at best, a loosely defined term—more impulsive than principled. Its practitioners find solace in both the political left (Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) and right (Donald Trump). For better or worse, populism is on the rise internationally, achieving significant electoral success in dozens of countries.
Populism thrives in an us-versus-them dichotomy. The us is typically "the people"—the disempowered everyday folk with whom the populist seeks solidarity.
However, the antecedent to them isn't always clear—and this ambiguity is a feature, not a bug.
A vague third person is a convenient strawman for the deceitful. In The Secret Life of Pronouns, James Pennebaker shares findings from a study comparing the court transcripts of convicted felons and those later exonerated of their crimes. The exonerated used more first-person singular pronouns (I and me). Meanwhile, the "truly guilty," Pennebaker notes, used third-person pronouns (they, them, he, she, etc.) more than the exonerated, "trying to shift the blame away from themselves onto others."
The imprecision of the populist they/them enables its flexibility, making it malleable and applicable to an ever-changing array of targets. Researchers from Germany's Friedrich Schiller University Jena closely examined pronoun usage in populist rhetoric. According to their study, populists favor impersonal pronouns, such as they, to avoid specificity, absolve responsibility, and reduce complexity.
Traditionally, this reductionist worldview rails against a wealthy and powerful "elite"—greedy corporations exploiting the poor on the left and a globalist cabal undermining cultural homogeneity and national sovereignty on the right.
However, populism also sets its sights on other groups—and few are better at hitting these moving targets than Donald Trump.
"They Will Never Make America Great Again"
On June 16, 2015, Trump iconicly descended his tower's escalators to announce his presidential ambitions. For nearly an hour, then-candidate Trump did what he does best: scapegoat. With weaponized nostalgia, he lamented how we were once a great nation, but now the "American Dream is dead."
Who killed the American Dream? As always, Trump had a few suspects.
According to Trump, foreigners, especially those from Mexico, were a likely culprit (emphasis added):
When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
"They will never make America great again," Trump concluded.
During this 45-minute address, Trump used the word they 158 times. Comparatively, Trump's next most-used pronouns were you (73 times), it (57), and I (55).
Trump's repeated tirades against immigrants infamously reappeared during the most recent debate. Citing the now-debunked story of Haitian immigrants eating household pets in Ohio, Trump shouted:
They're eating the dogs. The people that came in, they're eating the cats. They're eating the pets.
Trump's audacious claim about pet-eating Haitians was demonstrably false, but that didn't stop him from fanning the flames of moral outrage toward other marginalized groups.
Trump's campaign has dumped millions into attack ads with not-so-subtle transphobia. One ad proclaimed, "Kamala's agenda is they/them, not you"—an obvious wag of his moralistic finger at the transgender and nonbinary communities.
In the closing days of the election, Trump has leaned into this divisive rhetoric by setting his crosshairs on another amorphous target: the "deep state." "These are bad people," the former president said when referring to his political opponents. "We have a lot of bad people…They are, to me, the enemy from within."
Trump's ambiguous they/them can aptly scapegoat and dehumanize multiple targets—the "deep state," the LGBTQ community, immigrants, etc. Despite this ambiguity, Trump sends a clear message: They are who's destroying our country, and we must stop them at all costs. Trump's pronoun usage is, at best, an electioneering tactic and, at worst, a virulent dog whistle.
But Trump didn't invent this us-versus-them mentality. (Though, if given the opportunity, he'd probably take credit for it.) Instead, populist pronouns tap into humanity's worst tribalistic impulses and nativist instincts.
They are Us
If populism is so dangerous, why is it so appealing? This question doesn't have an easy answer. However, research suggests that human beings come about the us-versus-them dichotomy quite naturally.
The us-versus-them worldview once served a vital evolutionary purpose. Skepticism of the unknown is a natural defense mechanism. If premodern humans continuously paused and pondered whether that thing over there giving them the stink eye was a predator, humanity would have been extinct long ago.
Our body's natural chemistry also compels this binary thinking. Oxytocin—also known as the "love hormone"—is a natural human hormone that simulates uterine contractions during childbirth, enhancing our feelings of human bonding. However, oxytocin also intensifies our suspicions of others. This hormonal cocktail of antithetical emotions—again, the love for us and hatred of them—literally courses through our veins.
Moreover, the human brain rewards this contradictory behavior, too. Researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University studied the brain activity of college students competing against other students from rival schools. They found that students demonstrating aggression against their rivals exhibited significant activity in their nucleus accumbens and ventromedial prefrontal cortex, the brain's core reward circuitry. This research suggests that this neural pathway—which anticipates, seeks, and evaluates incentives—plays a "significant role in motivating aggression" toward out-group members.
Though social animals, humans are tragically hardwired for the anti-social binaries propelling today's toxic political culture.
So, before we condemn a convenient whipping boy (neither a Haitian nor Trump), a little bit of self-reflection will go a long way. Understanding the driving forces behind the us-versus-them paradox—be it manipulative pronouns or human biology—starts with looking in a mirror to find the true enemy within.
Though Adolph Hitler drove his family to flee Germany, Peter Gay also recognized that an aggressive populace—or, in the words of Daniel Goldhagen, "Hitler's willing executioners"—enabled and empowered the tyrant. "Hysteria defied self-control," Gay writes. "Obsessional neurosis mimicked it."
In this us-versus-them world, we have met the enemy—and they are us.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe, just maybe, some of German animosity towards Jews was the result of JEWS FORCING GERMANY INTO WW2.
They did coordinate global anti German boycotts in 1933 trying to starve and destroy Germany. Leaving it with only two options, cave to Jewish demands or defend itself by attacking the nations starving Germany.
These are properly referenced quotes from Jewish leaders demonstrating that they had intended to create and force Germany into WW2.
Now Jews are committing a holocaust in Gaza.
“We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany”. David A Brown, national chairman, united Jewish campaign, 1934.
“The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany …holy war against Hitlers people”
Chaim Weismann, the Zionist leader, 8 September 1939, Jewish chronicle.
The Toronto evening telegram of 26 February 1940 quoted rabbi Maurice l. Perlzweig of the world Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that” The world Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years”.
Poor, poor, POOR Shitler!!! The Jews MADE him start WW II, invade nations, kill and destroy widely, and murder 6 million Jews! Now just LOOK at twat ye MADE him do!!!
Refuted.
Refuted.
Refuted.
Thanks for demonstrating that you have to lie to support Israel.
Seriously though, why do you hate them so much?
I have a challenge for you, Rob.
Name 10 positive things about the Jewish People as a whole, and 10 negative things about them. You don't have to explain them unless you want to, a bullet point list will suffice. I'm mostly just trying to gauge where your pros and cons are on one demographic or another.
Hatred has nothing to do with any of my posts.
Do you really think that sharing the truth that is and has been censored globally is hatred?
Hatred is conflict and conflict in speech originates from lying. While love originates from happiness which comes from the knowledge one’s life is in order.
I don’t know why you resort to hatred when you can’t accept the truth that you cannot refute.
But I do know that everyone needs to hear the truth, recognize and accept it if they ever want to be happy and live in peace with others.
I’ve demonstrated that the Jewish religion advocates lying, the Kol Nidre, that’s hatred, evil satanism which manifests throughout history in corrupt Jewish behaviour. Bad behaviour that results in persecution.
Freemasonry, a satanic secret society pyramid scheme is based on Judaism.
WW1 was extended when the US was fooled into entering it by Jews in exchange for the Balfour Declaration promise of Palestine to Rothschild.
As I demonstrated above WW2 was forced upon Germany and the rest of the world by Jews.
The Middle East conflict began the day Jews stole Palestine beginning the last 76 years of Israeli terrorism against Palestinians and throughout the Middle East.
All of this and much more enabled by the financial power resulting from freemasonry principles of lies and secrecy. It has been kept out of the media and history books.
In place of the truth, is the greatest lie, the WW2 holocaust story. Practiced hundreds of times by Jews before WW2 to achieve money, sympathy and impunity as victims.
I’ve recognized this for several decades and wondered what atrocity would be next. So I’ve been sharing the truth about Jews to compete with all the lies and brainwashing the world experiences daily.
And you think it’s hatred.
Well, today we’re witnessing their latest atrocity as Jews are in trial in the United Nations international Court of Justice for committing a holocaust in Gaza.
Aren’t you wondering already, as I am, what their next atrocity will be?
Stop Israel
Refuted.
10 latkas
9 php(programming language)
8 smashing things at weddings
7 fun sayings the hutsva
6 kicked ass during the 6 days war
5 ditto for the yam kippor war
4 uzi
3 of you Jewish you get a lot of vacation days
2 the ability to build a thriving nation in the desert surrounded by people that hate them
1 the three stoogges
Take Hitler's dick out of your mouth for a minute and breathe.
Is that the voice of experience?
Refuted, motherfucker.
Refuted.
Normally, I'm at odds with you, Molly, but here, I fully agree 100%, Misek needs to take Hitler's dick out of his mouth.
So Walt Kelly was right?
Yes, he was right!
We (almost) all lust after the EXPERT pussy-grabbing politicians who will EXPERTLY pussy-grab some nearby scapegoat, to OUR advantage! By appealing to our inner puss-grabbers, the pussy-grabbing politicians ABUSE US, by grabbing us right in our pussy-grabbers! The politicians are actually pussy-grabber-grabbers, exploiting us us by appealing to our FANTASIES that we can get ahead by pussy-grabbing those "others", the scapegoats, and that they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!
In more details, here ya go...
Hey conservatives!!! How about a “Grand Compromise”? Y’all give up your “abortion boners”, in exchange for lib-tards giving up their “gun boners”?
This looks like a prime opportunity for me to explain a few things I’ve learned on this planet, while becoming a geezer. A few things, that is, about human nature, and excessive self-righteousness, tribalism, the “rush to judge” others, and the urge to punish.
“Team R” politician: “The debt is too large, and government is too powerful. If you elect ME, I will FIX that budget-balance problem SOON! But, first things first! THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE ARE GETTING ABORTIONS!!! We must make the liberals CRY for their sins! AFTER we fix that RIGHT AWAY, we’ll get you your budget balanced and low taxes!”
“Team D” politician: “The debt is too large, and I’ll get that fixed soon, I promise you, if you elect ME! First, the more important stuff, though: THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE ARE OWNING GUNS!!! We must PROTECT the American People from guns and gun-nuts!!! AFTER we fix that RIGHT AWAY, we’ll get our budgets balanced!”
And then we gripe and gripe as Government Almighty grows and grows, and our freedoms shrink and shrink. And somehow, the budget never DOES get balanced!
Now LISTEN UP for the summary: Parasites and politicians (but I repeat myself) PUSSY GRAB US ALL by grabbing us by… Guess what… by our excessive self-righteousness, tribalism, the “rush to judge” others, and the urge to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH those “wrong” others! Let’s all STOP being such fools, and STOP allowing the politicians OF BOTH SIDES from constantly pussy-grabbing us all, right in our urge to… Pussy-grab the “enemies”, which is actually ALL OF US (and our freedoms and our independence, our ability to do what we want, without getting micro-managed by parasites)!!!
Shorter and sweeter: The pussy-grabbers are actually pussy-grabber-grabbers, grabbing us all in our pussy-grabbers. Let us all (as best as we can) AMPUTATE our OWN nearly-useless-anyways pussy-grabbers, and the pussy-grabber-grabbers will NOT be able to abuse us all NEARLY ass much ass these assholes are doing right now!
Or do you ENJOY seeing extra tax money of yours endlessly wasted ass BOTH SIDES pussy-grab each other in grandstanding maneuvers that actually do us no good whatsoever?
Grasshopper... Learn to RENOUNCE your pussy-grabber (give UP on "making the libs cry"), and the pussy-grabber-grabbers (politicians) will no longer be able to abuse you thereby!
But JD Vance was wrong.
So very wrong.
Even wrong about being wrong.
Indeed. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
We have met the enemy, and he/she is they/them.
So?
Why not just accept that humans will be divided forever?
Is egalitarianism worth that much?
Yes, humans will never all agree. That leaves three options:
1. Kill all the others/unbelievers.
2. Divide up ideologically and geographically (and try to resist option 1).
3. Learn to mind your own business, and try running a society without official beliefs.
You left out the favorite. 4. Impose your beliefs on them from the top down.
That might be a subset (or precursor) to option 1.
Well all of them, even 3, devolve to option 1 eventually.
Marxists are incapable of leaving non Marxists alone. So they have to go. They can accept permanent exile, or be destroyed.
Marxists have no right to be Marxist.
What about they/them pronouns? Sound divisive.
The “/” is divisive. That’s for sure.
Dividend / divisor = = ???
You never get the joke.
So then divide the sheep from the goats for me, Oh Great Joker!
Seems to me that dividing the murderers (thieves etc.) from the peaceful (legitimate) laws-abiders is a legitimate function of Government Almighty, in some form or another... Dividing those who adore Drag Queen Story Hours v/s those who adore Drag Queen Spermy Daniels Hours should be a voluntary activity, and SNOT the purview (nor the perv-view) of Government Almighty!
Let me hold your hand and guide you there, Sqrlsy.
In mathematics, the forward slash (/) symbol is primarily used to represent division.
For instance:
12/3 = 4 (result of dividing 12 by 3)
Quicktown Brix said "The “/” is divisive. That’s for sure."
Do you get it now?
Dividend / divisor = = ???, I said.
You FLUNK, Oh PervFected One! You did SNOT answer my question!
Dividend / divisor = = Quotient plus remainder (if any, especially when dealing with integers only, when no fractions are allowed).
To DEEPLY understand ALL of the humor here, see...
https://www.cuemath.com/dividend-divisor-quotient-remainder-formula/
YOU (Oh PervFected One) are the DIVISOR who divides the world into ALL of The PervFected Ones (You and You alone; or MAYBE Der JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer and Der Dear Leader Trump also) and everyone else!
It probably doesn’t. All it does is gibber, and eat shit. We should have it put down.
We should call the NYSDEC on this Sqrl, just like they did to P'Nut.
Hey Punk Boogers! HERE is your “fix”! Try shit, you might LIKE shit!!!
https://rentahitman.com/ … If’n ye check ’em out & buy their service, ye will be… A Shitman hiring a hitman!!!
If’n ye won’t help your own pathetic self, even when given a WIDE OPEN invitation, then WHY should ANYONE pity you? Punk Boogers, if your welfare check is too small to cover the hitman… You shitman you… Then take out a GoFundMe page already!!!
Also, in case of a "miracle happens here" and ye want to get OFF of welfare and get yourself an honest, respectable, upstanding-kinda JOB, then be advised that rent-a-hitman is HIRING! See https://rentahitman.com/careers-1 ...
Upon becoming an American citizen and changing his name, Peter Gay...
That’s unfortunate.
Nobody will vote for him.
Let's ask Sarcasmic. He has his finger on the pulse of the libertarian homophobe vote.
The pulse is THROBBING!!! Homophobes have an IMMENSE HARD-ON for gays!!!
And his pal Pedo Jeffy, who has his finger k the pulse of the groomer vote.
Oops
Yeah, once again our 21st century American left and right populist groups are the same, eh?
One side has a revolutionary agenda they want to force on society, and their populism is motivated by frustration with leadership that isn’t radical enough. The other side mostly wants to be left alone, and their populism is motivated by resistance to the revolutionaries. But both sides.
Same/same, boaf sides, Hitler and Churchill both wanted war and bombed each other's countries, the Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government both wanted to rule Russia, Hugh Hefner and Ted Bundy both wanted sex with beautiful women, no difference.
Funny how the ‘libertarian magazine’ nearly always favors the neo Marxist side.
Didn't see this before, but apparently Jimmy Kimmel made a joke a few days ago telling Trump voters to wait until next Thursday or Friday to vote.
Douglass Mackey didn't find the joke amusing.
https://x.com/DougMackeyCase/status/1851979265085935944
What are the odds that Kimmel will be charged and given 7 months in jail. I suppose that's (D)ifferent though.
I am still surprised that Kimmel has not been me-tooed for all his heinous crimes against women, especially the Man Show.
He's become a lickspittle cuck for a reason, you know. Ditto Stern.
I hope their wives' boyfriends treat them kindly.
The cuckshed was the funniest meme ever. "When your wife's boyfriend pays for your Xbox Live".
I mean... they adopted both Cheneys. All they came about is loyalty, not actual behaviors.
So the author admits that "populism" is an ill defined term and makes no attempt to identify it's opposite or what it's alternatives might be.. But it's clearly bad in his telling. After a brief nod to Sanders and AOC, he identifies the primary evil and to the surprise of no one who reads Reason it's name is Trump. Word counts identifying offending pronouns. Really scholarly stuff. But. What if a sitting president made a speech in front of a blood red background with military officers present, shook his fists and railed about the "other" that he calls Mega MAGA? What if the former Democrat candidate described those same people as "deplorables"? What if that same sitting president called the "other" garbage? What would the pronoun count reveal? Are Biden and Clinton populists? If not, why not.
Well said.
As long as Biden/Harris don't say "vermin", right?
Democrats and corporate media love to sat vermin towards conservatives though.
https://x.com/0rf/status/1732746683274932259
Shhhh, don't tell Sarc and Jeffy. You might start bursting their little bubbles.
I mentioned this yesterday, but whenever someone uses “populism” as a slur, it’s a sure sign they lean toward authoritarianism.
At its core, populism simply means listening to the will of the people—their hopes, needs, and aspirations. By labeling it “populism,” critics make it easier to dismiss and disparage.
Strictly speaking, populism is about popular agency—giving the people a real say in political decision-making. Yet, both socialist and elitist oligarch types attack populism as if it’s some “dangerous ideology” that pits “the people” as inherently good against a supposedly corrupt “elite.” This is exactly the angle people like Chemjeff and Jay Stooksberry are taking; they’re equating populism with demagogy, as if it’s just about oversimplified, emotional appeals or politicians chasing votes without real solutions. In reality, populism is an emancipatory force that lets marginalized groups, and often the broader public, push back against entrenched power structures.
Anyone who criticizes populism for empowering citizens should be viewed with suspicion. Look for their motives. They’re certainly not libertarian.
I also hear "populism" as a condemnation from elitists. Whether or not they want authority (yes, most do), elitists can't help but disparage the commoners, and the nerve they show when they attempt to set their own ignorant agenda.
Today’s populism is big government populism. It champions the use of big government to hunt down political enemies and smite them, be they immigrants without papers or members of the enemy party.
Opposition to big government populism is not support for authoritarianism. It’s opposition to using big government for revenge.
Today’s populism is big government populism.
Yes, that's why they're railing against the deep state, because they love big government. That's why they want the corporatists to stop mass importation of a statusless replacement population for the oligarchs factories, because they love big government.
You convinced me, genius.
Know what happens when you fight government with government? More government. Not only that but more government that will be used against you when power changes hands, and it always changes hands.
Shorter sarc - let the deep state survive.
Just like you advocate against investigating government abuses.
Know what happens when you fight government with government? More government.
Like when you throw a punch at your wife’s boyfriend? Just turn up the TV volume instead so you can’t hear them, right?
Seriously, that’s the most craven, disgusting, inane viewpoint ever. You’re going to do great in your pod eating your crickets, aren’t you.
Deep state, corporatists, oligarchs… that used to be the language of leftists.
But now those ARE leftist. So maybe fighting them reduces government (at least the intrusive kind).
Leftists won that battle.
Thus it is no longer time to just try and slow down its progress. It is time to forcefully reverse its progress.
Can’t have a left without leftists. So there’s the solution right there.
Those terms have been used by libertarians for decades... oh I see why you didn't know.
Sarc, when will you realize your self curated ideas on definitions are based on your ignorance and not intelligent thought?
"whenever someone uses “populism” as a slur, it’s a sure sign they lean toward authoritarianism."
"Anyone who criticizes populism for empowering citizens should be viewed with suspicion. Look for their motives. They’re certainly not libertarian."
Rules for Realists!
whenever someone uses “populism” as a slur, it’s a sure sign they lean toward authoritarianism.
This is the same type of fallacy of composition that Jesse engages in daily. Because authoritarians don't like populism, therefore, everyone who doesn't like populism are authoritarians!
You know who else doesn't like populism? People who are genuinely interested in liberty. Because threats to liberty arise not only from authoritarian dickhead leaders, but ALSO from a populist mob which wants to impose its will onto everyone. Violation of the NAP is just as wrong if it comes from a government agent, than if it comes from a populist mob. The authoritarian thinks he can get away with oppression because he has the guns to do so. The populist mob thinks they can get away with oppression because they have the power of numbers behind them.
We have seen it over and over: when some judge overrules the wishes of the populist mob, does the populist mob stop to consider that yeah, maybe they have gone too far and they really shouldn't be trampling on the liberties of the people they disagree with? Of course not. They keep on going, denouncing the judge as "corrupt", "woke", "progressive", blah blah blah, even judges that Trump himself appointed, and they continue on their populist quest undeterred by the setback.
We saw this most clearly, during the pandemic, when the populist mob wanted to forbid private businesses from requiring a mask in order to enter their establishment. This was a clear violation of the property rights of the establishment's owner. It could not be clearer. Was the populist mob persuaded by these arguments? Of course not. They just rationalized their way around it and defended using coercive government to tell property owners what to do on their own property.
The populist mob is fickle and cannot be trusted to be guarantors of liberty. Trust them at your own peril.
And here comes Pedo Jeffy to defend his neo Marxist masters. What a surprise. Pedo Jeffy loves neo Marxist authoritarianism.
Nazi authoritarianism in the very real 1930s sense, although he does have a drop of Maoism too. He's too corporatist to be a pure Marxist.
He fantasizes about a borderless world controlled by globalists with no real law and order except for whatever his overlords like Soros choose to allow. Most of us won’t own anything and there will be no morality. At least not anything real. And of course things like gender and age of consent will be rendered meaningless except for the whims of his woke overlords.
Then Pedo Jeffy will have all the prepubescent boy flesh his enlarged, fatty, cholesterol clogged heart desires.
Those fickle populists mostly want to be left alone. And that includes when they go out for a beer or a burger. Yup, they entered private establishments, but then got hassled. Should they respect the owner's wishes? Sure, but it does violate MYOB. And most of the motivation populists feel for storming the Bastille comes from others telling them what to do.
Once upon a time, in this nation, we had a small elite wrapped up in how to self-govern in ways that promoted individual liberty. And we had a large populist class who really didn't care, since they could mostly do as they pleased. That sounds far better than what we have now, especially under Democratic-progressive rule.
Those fickle populists mostly want to be left alone.
Except when the local demagogue comes along and says, "Did you hear that the school down the street is indoctrinating students into Marxism? We can't let that stand! Let's give them a piece of our mind!" And then you have mobs of populists descending upon school board meetings. They are easily swayed by emotional appeals and they are easily led by demagogues telling them what they want to hear. Even the Founding Fathers realized that. That is why we don't have a more democratic system of government.
And if you think I am being unfair to the mob, then please tell me why a story that was literally based on a third-hand rumor on Facebook about Haitians eating pets, was able to gain so much traction. Where were the critical thinking skills on display in that instance? Who among the MAGA set was willing to stand up and say "these rumors aren't verified, maybe we should collect more data before forming a concrete conclusion here..." The answer is: no one. The mob took the rumor and ran with it, and the demagogic leaders like Trump and Vance were more than happy to exploit the rumor for their own electoral purposes. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
Should they respect the owner’s wishes? Sure, but it does violate MYOB.
Even you admit that the mob is in the wrong here, but you nonetheless defer to them. Guests on private property are not entitled to dictate to the owner what the rules for that property must be. But because the mob has greater numbers, and demagogic leaders with power willing to back them up, that is how we get erosion of liberty, in this case, erosion of private property rights.
Funny that you mention the storming of the Bastille. There is a straight-line connection between the storming of the Bastille, to the Reign of Terror, to Emperor Napoleon. This has happened over and over again in human history. If you give the mob power, the result is tyranny, not liberty.
Who among the MAGA set was willing to stand up and say “these rumors aren’t verified, maybe we should collect more data before forming a concrete conclusion here…” The answer is: no one.
Who formed a concrete decision?
As of now, not one person has been charged.
"Except when the local demagogue comes along and says, “Did you hear that the school down the street is indoctrinating students into Marxism?"
And what if he's right? What if a group of pedophiles have actually seized control over their children's education, and are gaslighting them into Marxian thought and sexual perversion?
Are they wrong to point it out? Are people wrong to be upset?
They’re clearly wrong in Pedo Jeffy’s eyes. This is the guy who was steadfastly against Florida enacting a prohibition against sexual speech involving children under 10. And don’t forget his advocacy for the free movement within the US of illegals who are known rapists and child molesters.
They will always be better than typical authoritarians, if for nothing else than their scope of desires is smaller.
“Populism” literally means “pleasing the populous”. Or is pure democracy suddenly dangerous again? Only, instead of Constitutional cures like separation of power, representative law making, etc., you just want the government to make the right decisions for the people, whatever the populous wants.
Or is pure democracy suddenly dangerous again?
Pure democracy has always been dangerous. "Two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner" and all that.
So what level of democracy is acceptable to you? Lords getting together to choose a king? Kings selecting an emperor?
When does the will of the people come into play, Nazi?
Clearly within the guidelines of said lords. To be altered at their whim. Fatfuck imagines himself to have a seat at the table.
He doesn’t, and won’t.
“The populist mob is fickle and cannot be trusted to be guarantors of liberty.”
Jeff reveals his true intentions in the end by pushing the typical authoritarian line: that only the so-called elite can govern the masses, and ordinary people can’t be trusted to lead themselves. In essence, this is straight-up fascism.
Jeff’s argument rests on a series of misrepresentations and selective criticisms that miss the true nature of populism and its alignment with libertarian principles.
Firstly, stealing a trope from the Marxists, he conflates populism with mob rule, suggesting that “everyone who doesn’t like populism are authoritarians!” This isn’t just a gross oversimplification but deliberate misrepresentation. Real populism is about representing the people’s voice and empowering those often ignored by centralized elites. Populism isn’t “mob rule” but rather challenging elite overreach and authoritarianism—something real libertarians support.
Furthermore, Jeffy argues that “genuine liberty” is threatened equally by authoritarian leaders and a “populist mob.” However, his portrayal of populism as irrational and authoritarian in itself is a strawman. In reality, populism can be a means of protecting liberty by empowering the populace to hold elites accountable. Labeling popular participation as inherently authoritarian ironically reveals his own overweening bias toward centralized and dictatorial power. Defending elites or judges as guardians of liberty while dismissing the populace’s role as “dangerous” veers closer to authoritarianism than any other view, and is a polar opposite to libertarianism.
Jeff suggests that populists “rationalized their way around” property rights issues during the pandemic, but this is a lie and a purposefully biased view. Time and time again we see that these private corporations were pushed, threatened and cajoled by the Jeffy/Joe Administration. The pushback on mandates was always rooted in concerns over government overreach (the companies didn’t actually give a fuck)—people felt that mandates infringed upon individual freedoms. This isn’t about a “mob” disregarding property rights but about people opposing a push from government.
The real authoritarian tendency is not in the current populist movement, which seeks to decentralize power and return agency to the individual. By assuming that elites alone should safeguard liberty and that populist movements are simply “irrational mobs,” you deliberately endorse a top-down power structure that is pure authoritarian.
TLDR, populism isn’t about enforcing “mob rule”; it’s about empowering individuals against the overreach of entrenched powers. The current populism aligns with the libertarian value of decentralization, ensuring that authority isn’t concentrated in the hands of a few. Dismissing it as inherently authoritarian not only misconstrues populism but leans into the very authoritarianism Jeff pretends to oppose.
Jeff reveals his true intentions in the end by pushing the typical authoritarian line: that only the so-called elite can govern the masses, and ordinary people can’t be trusted to lead themselves. In essence, this is straight-up fascism.
ML reveals his dishonesty by presenting a false choice between anarchy and fascism. Can a mob govern itself without some type of authoritarian government structure? History would suggest that the answer is no - stateless communist 'utopias' devolve into tyrannical hellholes. ML knows this, but he dishonestly presents the alternative as "elites governing the masses" and "straight-up fascism". Instead, what I and just about every other libertarian favors is a government that, yes, is coercive, but only to the extent necessary to secure the liberties of the people. That's not fascism, that is minarchism. Learn the difference.
Jeff’s argument rests on a series of misrepresentations and selective criticisms that miss the true nature of populism and its alignment with libertarian principles.
Firstly, stealing a trope from the Marxists, he conflates populism with mob rule, suggesting that “everyone who doesn’t like populism are authoritarians!”
No, that is your false choice. There are lots of reasons to oppose populism, and Marxist authoritarians don't have the monopoly on criticism of populism.
This isn’t just a gross oversimplification but deliberate misrepresentation.
You're right, you did deliberately misrepresent the opposition to populism.
Real populism is about representing the people’s voice and empowering those often ignored by centralized elites. Populism isn’t “mob rule” but rather challenging elite overreach and authoritarianism—something real libertarians support.
No, what you describe is anti-authoritarianism. There are many ways to challenge authority, and populism is just one way to do it. You don't have the monopoly on that. Libertarians have a thing or two to say about it as well.
Furthermore, Jeffy argues that “genuine liberty” is threatened equally by authoritarian leaders and a “populist mob.” However, his portrayal of populism as irrational and authoritarian in itself is a strawman. In reality, populism can be a means of protecting liberty by empowering the populace to hold elites accountable.
Sure - they hold elites accountable to the will of the mob, not to principles of liberty. And, the will of the mob is fickle and emotional. In the Reign of Terror and the Glorious Revolution, the elites were "held accountable" by cutting their heads off. That is not justice, that is mob vengeance. And who exactly are "the elites"? Are they limited to just formal members of the ruling class? Or do they include, say, people who are not in the ruling class but support their ideals? Do they include petty bureaucrats who don't give a shit about ideology and who just earn a paycheck working for the government? In practice, the definition of 'elites' includes everyone that the mob doesn't like, whether or not they hold any formal power. As a chemist, I am quite familiar with the story of Lavoisier, widely considered to be the father of modern chemistry. Long story short: during the Reign of Terror, despite Lavoisier's scientific brilliance, the mob came for him and cut his head off because he was merely associated with the 'elites' via his financial investments. And the entire world was worse off as a result. That is what happens in practice. "Accountability" means "seeking revenge against the enemeies of the people, very broadly defined".
What I favor, is holding rulers accountable to princples of liberty, despite the depredations of the mob.
Labeling popular participation as inherently authoritarian
No - popular participation is not inherently authoritarian. A populist mob asserting power for itself to rule over others, that is inherently authoritarian.
Defending elites or judges as guardians of liberty while dismissing the populace’s role as “dangerous” veers closer to authoritarianism than any other view, and is a polar opposite to libertarianism.
Completely false. I suppose in ML's world, the Reign of Terror never happened.
Jeff suggests that populists “rationalized their way around” property rights issues during the pandemic, but this is a lie and a purposefully biased view. Time and time again we see that these private corporations were pushed, threatened and cajoled by the Jeffy/Joe Administration. The pushback on mandates was always rooted in concerns over government overreach (the companies didn’t actually give a fuck)
You're doing the exact thing that you claim you're not doing, attempting to rationalize away why your team's ignoring of property rights is just and proper. How do you know that ALL of the individual establishments who required a mask "didn't actually give a fuck" and were instead coerced by government against their will? You don't, that is your assumption that you use to rationalize to yourself that you aren't actually fighting against other people, you are fighting against big bad government. Well, news flash: there were plenty of business owners who required a mask out of their own free will, without any government coercion whatsoever.
—people felt that mandates infringed upon individual freedoms. This isn’t about a “mob” disregarding property rights but about people opposing a push from government.
Oh, so the mob "felt" that the mandates from private property owners infringed upon individual freedoms. I am quite certain that they "felt" that way. But rights and liberties aren't subject to feelings. You are proving my point: the mob is fickle and emotional and easily manipulated, and if they think they are being wronged, they can easily convince themselves and rationalize to themselves why their feeling of victimhood is justified and proceed to act upon their feelings.
The real authoritarian tendency is not in the current populist movement, which seeks to decentralize power and return agency to the individual.
And this is the biggest lie of them all. Populism is NOT about decentralizing power to the individual. Populism is about placing power in the hands of "the people", which is a collectivist representation of a certain subset of people. And that is part of the point of the essay above. Populism is about taking power away from "them" and placing it in the hands of "us". But the definitions of "them" and "us" are slippery. "Them" includes everyone that the mob dislikes, regardless if they are actually 'elites' or not. And "us" includes those whom the mob accepts as being worthy of acceptance in the mob, not the entirety of all the people.
Where do the MAGA populists stand on the issue of, say, drag queens or transgender individuals? Do the populists seek to take power away from the "elites" who seek to repress them, and hand that power over to the drag queens and transgender people to live their lives as they see fit? OF COURSE NOT. The drag queens and transgendered people are lumped in with "them", the people to be hated by the mob, even though they are not elites and as a rule hold no formal power. How about immigrants, particularly the immigrants who come here with nothing and fleeing genuine oppression? Do the MAGA populists want to free them from mistreatment at the hands of the 'elites' in this country? OF COURSE NOT. They line up behind their demagogic leader who villainizes them and casts them squarely in the "them" camp, people to be hated and cast out.
Populism is not, and never has been, about "power to the individual". It is always about "power to the mob". And if you are a part of the mob, it may seem like they are one and the same! But if you are not part of the mob, it looks very different.
By assuming that elites alone should safeguard liberty and that populist movements are simply “irrational mobs,” you deliberately endorse a top-down power structure that is pure authoritarian.
Oh, elites cannot alone safeguard liberty. They must be held accountable via various mechanisms, including elections, impeachments, recalls, etc. But from a libertarian perspective, they must be held accountable to principles of liberty, not merely to the fickle desires of the mob.
TL;DR: ML attempts to gaslight and whitewash what populism really is, and presents a false choice that the only alternative to populism is some type of authoritarian fascist hellhole. I convincingly explain why populism is incompatible with genuine libertarian ideals.
Fatfuck, everyone here knows you’re the liar. You’re a disgrace, and universally reviled. We’re all on to you. So just go. There is nothing left for you here.
Such an angry, fat, pathetic, lying , Marxist bitch.
chemjeff, thanks for a most excellent essay!!! Speaking of fickle power-hungry irrational mobs... I must say...
HANG MIKE PENCE!!! The mob has determined that Mike Pence is part of the "them"!!! And the TrumptatorShit is WITH us!!! Bring on the hangmen, and also man the guillotines!
FF;dr
We saw this most clearly, during the pandemic, when the populist mob wanted to forbid private businesses from requiring a mask in order to enter their establishment.
Public establishments have already been regulated with respect to whom they could exclude, with the 1964 Civil Rights Act being an obvious example. The Unruh Act in California is another example.
Are you arguing all anti-discrimination laws that restrain private businesses be repealed?
Make your case then.
Jeffy has made it clear that such laws are fine with him, because he is an egalitarian before he is a libertarian.
Simple! Being black isn't a free-will choice, nor does being black endanger other people.
Freely choosing to SNOT wear a mask, and risking sneezing a rain of disease-laden mucus in a "booger beam" deluge on others, in a time of disease, is radically different... A free-will choice to endanger others.
Hey, refusing to hire convicted embezzlers at the bank is discrimination also... Since we already have a 1964 Civil Rights Act, do you favor outlawing such discrimination by banks?
People who are scared of disease are free to stay home.
Or in a sterile plastic bubble.
Governors (of Red States always, for some tribalistic reason) are free to PROHIBIT stores from requiring their customers to wear masks! Thus, immune-compromised shoppers are deprived of shopping in less-disease-spreading stores. Government Almighty power pigs, and not the store “owners”, are now the TRUE owners!
What’s next, will sneeze guards at the salad bars be PROHIBITTED by Government Almighty?
You know, we COULD actually allow STORE OWNERS to set their policies! And then we could shop at whatever kind of store we want to shop at... If power pig governors would allow us to do as!
The Demon-Crap enemy "Other" did shit first, starting in 1964, so shit's OK if we do shit, too! THAT is the way FORWARD, progressive mob! Now follow MEEEEE, and let's go HANG MIKE PENCE!!!!
This poor article tries its best to apply a rigorous unwinding of Populism when in fact it is just its own version of “Us vs Them” rhetoric.
The idea that Populism is a unique harbinger of “Us vs Them” mentality is just mentally lazy. The nature of politics- especially in a democracy- is getting a coalition of people to impose policy. Whether you are a populist, or an Elitist or an Authoritarian or even an anarchist, if you want your political outcome, you need a coalition of followers- a Tribe- big enough to win the day in your political battle.
In any tribal conflict, there is an Us vs Them mentality. Every single political leader has galvanized support for their coalition by defining the “Others” who must be wrong and overcome.
Does anyone believe that Hilary Clinton invoking rage against “Deplorables” was speaking as a Populist? Does anyone think that the Alphabet Soup Agencies or Ivy League Reporters warning of “Russian Interference” are Populists? What about those Green crazies yammering about conspiracies to hide water cars?
The only way this is a unique problem to Populism is if you are question begging- if you assume that confrontational “Us vs Them” rhetoric is a populist impulse, then of course any time you see a tribe’s leader demonizing “Them” you will see “Populism”. But at that point populism loses all meaning. Hillary Clinton is a Populist, as is a technocrat bureaucrat running the FBI.
Populism is understood to be a movement that is trying to get autonomy from unaccountable bureaucrats managing their lives against their consent. That makes it “Us vs Them” but such is the case in ANY system where there are more than two tribes competing for control.
Every time I think I wrote a good post, Overt shows up and shows me how it's really done.
The guy is on fire.
Awww
I think both posts work well together.
I do wonder if the devout elitists, in their hermetic bubble, look at themselves as populists, especially those only intellectually and morally--but not financially--elite (based on their own assessment, of course). They are the rabble of the elite class, and populist sounds better than useful idiot.
Just eliminate the Marxists. Turns will get a lot better from there.
Yes. And the fact that these dire warnings about populism continually appear in Reason magazine reveals that the publishers believe that they are members of the elite or at least believe that a government of elites is preferable to the rule of deplorable flyovers.
https://x.com/jeremykauffman/status/1839665795921539487
Ooohhhhh….. the JeffSarc will seethe over that one.
Kauffman is the one supposedly in charge of the LPNH tweets that set people off so much (like the one about how many lives John McCain's cancer saved).
Kauffman also recorded a recent visit he got from the FBI concerning a tweet of the LPNH about Kamala Harris:
https://x.com/jeremykauffman/status/1835782658091102608?lang=en
Kauffman is a provocateur, but he's definitely a libertarian provocateur. He has as much right to that mantle as Harlos or Chase Oliver or anyone else writing at Reason.
What are Kauffman's accomplishments?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Kauffman
Tsk. Not gay.
So, he wants to legalize child labor and he thinks that South African apartheid wasn't so bad after all. He wants to send to Gitmo not just Fauci, but the editorial board of the Boston Globe. Apparently his visit from the FBI was because he tweeted that "anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be a hero".
So, please, try to convince us all why a person who wants to legalize child labor, and a person who wants to send a newspaper's editorial board to exile, is a superior representation of libertarian ideals.
You asked about his accomplishments. They are listed there. And for you to criticize anyone about how they think children should be treated is firing a cannon in a glass house.
He just doesn't want to have to pay the children he molests.
Do you think it is funny to accuse strangers of being child molesters?
Who was it that stood up for the oppressed rapefugee?
It's not molestation to just ejaculate on the kid, right? Especially if the child's drunk? It's okay if you're only tugging while watching them get raped?
You’re not a stranger. And you have a long history here of advocating for groomers and child rapist. You even managed to pull that into your open borders obsession.
Now get your pedophile ass out of here.
You're the asshole who claimed it isn't molestation to jack off on the kid, dipshit. Do you not read your own fucking posts!?!
Thank you all for proving my point, that you are motivated by emotional outrage and not standards of justice.
Is a bystander to rape AS GUILTY AS a rapist? Yes or no?
You all are very clearly answering "yes" because you are outraged by the crime and because of the identities of the victim and the perpetrators. Thank you for showing why you all should never serve on a jury.
Our responses are motivated by your ongoing responses which are defensive of individuals and practices involved in advancing grooming in government schools and allowing illegal alienated child predators and other rapists unlimited access to the US.
Now you hide behind hyperbolic accusations to deflect. Which is something else you do.
Gosh Jeffy, you sure are pissed that this man stood up to democrat abuse of power, aren’t you? You really are leftist filth. I knew you would be seething over what Kaufman wrote about the LP and your precious Marxist dupe Oliver.
That you don’t kill your self for what you are really showcases your sociopathy. Because only a sociopath could live with being what you are, and what you do, especially where small children are concerned.
Child labor is easy to defend from base libertarianism, since the age of consent is arbitrary (and thus anti-libertarian).
As for exile, that's also easy, it doesn't kill them, and it lets them rebuild their lives elsewhere.
Letting kids have jobs makes them less available for grooming by Jeffy and his fellow travelers.
Letting 8th graders work at Dairy Queen in the summer is just as immoral as sexually mutilating them. /Jeffy
Follows Sulu, Katie Hill and MuellerShewrote. Doesn't know Kauffman.
He has more accomplishment than chase does.
I totally called it. Pedo Jeffy is seething over that first tweet linked from Kauffman.
What are his accomplishments of note?
He called you a piece of shit and then cured cancer.
“wHaT aRe hiS aCcoMpliShmEntS oF nOtE”
You’re such a joke. Aside from an old TV show and picking up minors, what were Sulu's?
Sulu makes uninformed, stupid, lying posts about anything and anyone to the right of Pol Pot. There's his other "accomplishments".
Poor Fatfuck. Such an angry seething little bitch.
"Trump's restrictive immigration posture could have severe repercussions for the California wine industry"
Once again, Reason comes out for imported slave labor.
Brutal. Serfs,maybe? But still, upvote.
To populism's defenders, a question:
In the Hunger Games series of films, is Alma Coin a populist?
Alma Coin was the leader of District 13 which was opposed to the oppressive regime of President Snow in Panem and supported the rebellion. And for about 95% of the film series, she said all the things that a populist leader would say. She stood for the people against the oppressive tyrants in Panem. She was fighting to free the people from tyranny. But at the very end - spoiler alert - it turned out she wasn't all that much a fan of freedom and liberty after all. She fought against President Snow not to free the people, but to replace him as the tyrant in charge.
So the whole time, she was manipulating the rebellion to serve her own narrow interests. She manipulated the people's desires to be free in order to take power herself.
I would argue that yes, she is a populist, and she represents the inevitable result of what populism devolves into. The cheery sanitized view presented by ML and Overt pretends that populism is just the people claiming the power that they rightfully deserve. In reality, populist movements are led by people, and the type of leader that is the best fit for populism is the demagogue who can stoke and manipulate the emotions and anger of the mob. But the interests of the people and the leader frequently diverge. The demagogue learns very quickly that he doesn't have to give the people what they want, all he has to do is trick them into thinking that their interests coincide with his interests.
We had populist movements in the 20th century around the globe, as well. But they didn't wear MAGA hats, they were called communists. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, they all promised to deliver power to the people against the tyranny of the 'capitalist elite'. But we all know how that turned out: they just manipulated the people's desires to be free for their own ends, to instead not free the people from the Czar but to become the Czar themselves.
That is the inevitable fate of all populist movements. The people are angry and frustrated, but their demands are incoherent and their energy for change is dissipated by lack of direction. Along comes the Populist Savior who promises to deliver the people to freedom, if they appoint the Savior as leader and give him power to lead the rebellion. And if/when the rebellion is successful, Populist Savior turns into the new tyrant.
Hunger Games? Are you for real?
I would prefer to believe he's not for real, but disturbingly, I think he probably is.
Pedo Jeffy is spiraling. Wait and see what happens if Trump wins next week. Be ready to pour on the pressure.
It might just completely break him.
Should Trump win outright on election night with 270+ electoral votes, Wednesday's Jeffy should be absolutely lit like a molotov cocktail.
Indeed. So it’s very important to push him as hard as possible. With as many people piling on as possible, same thing with Sarc and Shrike too.
Who knows? Maybe they’ll turn to self harm.
Suicide for shitbags like that would be welcome, but it is every bit as likely as the 'I'm moving to Canada' bullshit last go-round.
But we CAN hope!
Conservaturds making friends, gathering votes, and influencing people by... PEDDLING KOOL-AID AND SUICIDE!!! How's it workin' for ya, servant and serpent of the Evil One?
EvilBahnFuhrer, drinking EvilBahnFuhrer Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…
He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
His Hero is Jimmy Jones,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jim-Jones
Loves death and the dying moans,
Then he likes to munch their bones!
He’s truly, completely a necrophiliac,
His brain, squirming toad-like, is REALY, really whack!
Has no thoughts that help the people,
He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
Kool-Aid man, please listen,
You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!
A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/
Hey EvilBahnFuhrer …
If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!
Even assuming the lefty polls have been compensating for their former biases, Trump's got it, and the question remaining is whether the wave is enough to take both houses.
A Hunger Gamestocracy is what you’re working towards, you worthless pile of blubber. So stop with your bullshit. You’re the villain here. You and your democrat overlords.
If anyone ever acted like a citizen of the Panem Capitol it's Lying Jeffy.
He probably looks like them too.
https://x.com/RhianFazzini/status/1793500361489322162
You are describing a "demagogue", not a "populist". Words have definitions, and your Humpty Dumpty attempt to define words as whatever you say that they mean is bullshit, and I'm calling bullshit.
But Alma Coin said all the right things about freeing the people from the tyranny of Panem. Who are you to judge otherwise?
When did Alma Coin cease being a populist and start being something else?
Your analogy holds about as much water as a sieve. I'm guessing you never read the books.
Fuck off with your fictional Alma Coin. DenverJ is right.
You've been swapping the meaning of "populism" with "demagogue", and then arguing against that.
This is one of your favorite games (after outright lying) here. Rewording someone else's argument or redefining a word to suit your purpose and then arguing against that.
And you get called out on it a million times a day and yet you keep on doing it. I hope Media Matters doesn't give you full pay for such a half-assed job.
You’re just babbling. Trying to make up ways to attack Trump, and anyone else who goes against Neo Marxist democrat hegemony.
This is essentially all you ever do.
It is Sullum, who is a TDS-addled slimy pile of shit, so don't expect an honest answer.
You do realize the protagonist of the books killed Coin, right?
SQRLSY just a year ago.
“Global Warming is Freezing. Didn’t you see The day after Tomorrow?”
U2 are definitely puppet-heads of Hollywood entertainment.
Oh my.
Biden says Republicans like Trump are “the kind of guys you’d like to smack in the ass.”
I can’t believe they allow that guy to be in front of a microphone.
They're or them or their?
Have I mentioned that Sullum is a TDS-addled steaming pile of shit who needs to fuck off and die to make his dog happy and his family proud?
Needs repeating and a request that his grave-site not be public knowledge; I don’t want to stand in line to piss on it.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, Sullum. You are a slimy pile of shit claiming to some false connection to libertarianism.
BTW, Sullum, I am more than happy to address you face-to-face; your TDS affliction makes you an easy debate victim.
To start, tell us, in specific terms, how Trump was worse than any POTUS in the last century. I will be happy to make an ass of you, with citations.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, shitbag.
Or, STFU, asshole.
Suggest, as I do to TDS-addled shitbags such as you, you start here, because I’m going to wipe your face in it every time I can, and since you are a TDS-addled pile of shit, it will be quite often:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooG2BcvNXhU&t=2057s
"Populism thrives in an us-versus-them dichotomy."
Our democracy.
Garbage supporters
Deplorables
Whiteness
Toxic masculinity
Cis people
Flyover country
Why can't they learn to code?
If you vote for Donald Trump, you ain't black.
The black face of white supremacy
Should I go on about they/ them?
^THIS^ - It is entirely Leftard Self-Projection.
So.. it is just about pronouns...
What's the libertarian angle here anyway?
The politicians have been gradually appropriating power through central regulation and legislation for long enough to have thoroughly damaged the economy to the point where enough people now feel threatened that "we" are starting to look for someone to blame for the shortages and increasing costs. Obliging demagogues are increasingly able to push the xenophobia buttons to divert "our" attention away from "themselves" and onto convenient scapegoats (i.e. deplorables, socialists, terrorists and illegal aliens) in order to manipulate, divide and polarize the increasingly emotional masses. Liberty, tolerance and prosperous cooperation are circling the drain.
Tolerance for Anti-Liberty Gov-Gun "plans" is exactly what needs to "circle the drain". Blaming socialists for supporting socialism isn't rocket-science.
The animus tends to be cyclical, historically speaking. Most humans, although subtly and sometimes dramatically affected by hormones and the hard-wired xenophobia resulting from a million years of evolution, are also capable of self-aware tolerance. In fact, when peace prevails and exposure to "the others" is gradual, "they" become "us" and prosperity and community ensue.
There will always be a few power-hungry jerks who enjoy controlling people, and they know what buttons to push for the disgruntled few who infest every community. That's why the pogroms never last very long in any one place at any one time. It takes time for the politicians to make things bad enough for enough of "us" to start to feel threatened enough to start allowing them to push "our" buttons against whatever convenient scapegoats happen to be nearby. The lust for power is even more fundamental in the genes of a few humans than the xenophobia that lies deep in all of us, but people of good will have always been able to rise above the madness to become heroes, even during the worst of times in our history.
If populism is so dangerous, why is it so appealing? This question doesn't have an easy answer.
Yes it does. And you're retarded that you didn't immediately figure it out.
It's the same exact reason people love bread and circuses, and will accept absolute oppressive tyranny in return for it. It's also the same exact reason recreational drug users literally do not care about anything whatsoever except being high (and if you don't believe me, ask them what is more valuable than that, such that they'd sacrifice recreational drug use forever for it - they will NEVER have an answer). It's the same exact reason the LGBT Pedo cult has pushed this "trans affirmation" dogma on children, and why their parents, who should be behind bars, virtue signal off of it. The climate zealots do the same thing. As do the critical theorists.
As long as it feels good, and makes you feel good about yourself, who cares about the consequences.
Once this social mindset sets in, the society that has it is doomed.
“…starts with looking into a mirror to find the true enemy within.”
Finding an answer to “us vs them” in cultural self-hatred and preference for the other leads to a different sort of pathological behavior, like denying that racism against one own group can even exist, and putting one’s head in the sand when confronted with evidence to the contrary.
I've come to the conclusion the term 'populist' is just a left-wing deflection term for 'socialism'. This entire article is nothing but pitching left-wind ideology and trying to blame it on Trump.
"collective identity" = Leftard Cries.
"the people" (Entirely take out-of Constitutional context) = Leftard Cries.
And this is where the Projection-Trigger sits.
"Traditionally, this reductionist worldview rails against a wealthy and powerful "elite"—greedy corporations exploiting the poor on the left and a globalist cabal undermining cultural homogeneity and national sovereignty on the right."
The US "national sovereignty" ***IS*** about Individualism!!!
You can't complain about US "national sovereignty" being a populist construct when that "national sovereignty" is Individualism..
Like I said; this whole article is Leftard-Projection.
Next; "Skepticism of the unknown" - Immigration isn't 'unknown' to the USA. The USA has more immigration than any other nation. It ***IS*** WELL KNOWN. Most are here for welfare with 3/4rds voting for MORE welfare. 25% want a USA. Immigration isn't 'unknown' to the USA.
The reason for conflict between people is their stubborn refusal to value, discern, accept and share the truth aka reality of every and any issue.
This delusion is demonstrated by the use of ambiguous and often hypocritical dog whistles that each opposing side recognizes as the irrefutable truth, required for peace.
But the ambiguity in those dog whistle statements contradicts each other resulting in perpetual conflict instead of peace.
Here’s the solution. Say what you mean as clearly, specifically and unambiguously as you can about the issue you want to comment on.
Then apply the same process to replies from others to discern what you can refute, prove as wrong, from what you can’t claim as true.
You’ll probably find that the intellectual process of eliminating ambiguity often changes your recognition of truth about that issue. That’s good. That’s real truth.
Don’t fall back on your comfortable dog whistle bigoted perspective. That’s perpetuating conflict.
I think 'populist' is the dog-whistle you just described.
Yes, it sure is.
"... Say what you mean as clearly, specifically and unambiguously as you can about the issue you want to comment on..."
You are a lying pile of Nazi shit who should fuck off and die.
“Then apply the same process to replies from others to discern what you can refute, prove as wrong, from what you can’t claim as true.”
What makes you believe any of what you said, all lies, to be true?
It’s alway the same with these fuckwits.
They double down on their bigotry instead of considering the fact that they’re lying.
When challenged on it, they all cut and run like the cowards they are.
Refuted.
And yes, you ARE a Nazi.
Weird that those so keen to "preserve democracy" are those who are most afraid of a candidate promising to give the people what the people want.
>Populism thrives in an us-versus-them dichotomy. The us is typically “the people”—the disempowered everyday folk with whom the populist seeks solidarity.
So are you saying the mainstream Democrats, Deep State, etc, are populists?
Because the narrative they push is also an ‘us vs them’ one – where you are also cajoled into giving ‘us’ more power to ‘protect’ you from ‘them’.
Why is populism bad when its practiced by outsiders but good when practiced by political elites?
Why is Trump’s populism bad but Biden, Harris, Obama, Bush, etc good?
Why are those who claim to be most supportive of democracy hate it when a candidate says they'll give the demos what they demos wants?