Can populism last?
I see populism as the politics of an - invariably figure-head led - party whose one aim is power, and whose tactic is to use any democratic method possible to achieve it. This means giving the people what they want (or seeming to), rubbishing anyone who picks apart their flimsy emotive arguments, indeed quashing all argument with ranting and changing the subject where possible; exploiting the public fear of immigration and justiying the necessary counter-measures in the name of national identity; whipping up fear and hatred of an unaccountable 'elite' that allows globalism. Populists don't care a fig for tradition or convention - the end justifies any means. Because their targeted voters are basically uneducated, populists can u-turn, contradict their previous policies and just smile whilst doing so; secure that their followers still trust them. Populism is also usually a facade for right-wing economic policies.
I'm not sure we can talk about populism as a movement sweeping the world. That assumes some guiding force or creative aspiration. I think it's just the fact of, and the means of, voters' primal fears being exploited by ruthlessly self-serving would-be leaders. Populists are above all opportunists, and the increased mass-movement of labour and goods brought by globalisation has thrown up their chance.
So, is this just a temporary phenomenon, to be overtaken by an (eventual) recovery from the 2008 crash? Or is future politics to be a constant battle of internationalist liberalism versus insular immigration-fear and xenophobia?
I'm not sure we can talk about populism as a movement sweeping the world. That assumes some guiding force or creative aspiration. I think it's just the fact of, and the means of, voters' primal fears being exploited by ruthlessly self-serving would-be leaders. Populists are above all opportunists, and the increased mass-movement of labour and goods brought by globalisation has thrown up their chance.
So, is this just a temporary phenomenon, to be overtaken by an (eventual) recovery from the 2008 crash? Or is future politics to be a constant battle of internationalist liberalism versus insular immigration-fear and xenophobia?
Comments (51)
Please expand on this.
Quoting Tim3003
No, it's more like a snowball effect in that it feeds on itself. In my case, being an American, I feel as though irreparable damage has occurred through the current administration. Restoring faith in accountability and honesty are traits that are severely lacking in American politics.
a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
Is that what we're talking about?
Are there any left-wing populists ? I'm a Brit, so my knowledge of Trump is limited, but isn't he a free-marketeer? He's not a Democrat.. Here the right of our Conservative Party have taken up populism with gusto. Boris Johnson has quickly usurped Nigel Farage of the Brexit Party as its chief exponent. Both have basically right-wing policies. Populists hate foreign control - so they're anti-EU here, anti-globalist everywhere, and speak in favour of the free-market insofar as it benefits them. They're not explicitly racist, but they champion the employment rights of the home-population against being undercut by immigrant workers or cheap imports. Other examples are Le Pen in France - even Bolsonaro in Brazil.
I'm not saying populists are especially concerned with economic or political theory - their yardstick is winning votes, but is it coincidence they're all right-of-centre?
Your Overtone Window has shifted significantly. I thought Third Way politics worked best for the UK, what happened?
Yes, but it doesn't 'strive to appeal' in my view. It latches onto base fears, exploits and manipulates them with half-truths and lies; and its aim is to benefit the egos and megalomania of its leaders rather than the ordinary people.
Not sure what Overtone Window means! I guess the Third Way worked well under Tony Blair - until the 2008 crash. Since then ordinary people have struggled to recapture their lost living standards, and are understandably miffed with the political elite. To me the problem is that their loss of faith in the elite is now being exploited by unscrupulous self-agrandisers who offer easy scapegoats and nationalist remedies. Let's be honest, this was the tactic Hitler used to gain power in the 1930's..
Does it preach freedom? It seems to me it preaches fear of foreigners and building walls to keep them out. Are we free inside a self-built prison?
So something couldn't be populism if it didn't introduce half-truths and lies?
It's a stretch about Adolf, but I can see some parallels.
Here's the Overtone Window broken down.
I still think you Brits have it much better than what the US ideological nativism has produced thus far. Lots and lots of jingoism.
I’m not aware of any of them preaching fear of foreigners. Perhaps you’ve misinterpreted or misrepresented what they actually say.
Perhaps 'preaches fear' is the wrong term. What it does is demonise foreigners and whip up alarm that 'they' are out to take 'us' over, subject us to 'their' (foreign) cultures and rob us of our national identity. 'Identity politics' is the in-fashion term to describe this. By invoking xenophobic fear populists can convert political allegiance from relatively reason-based to the level of identity-threat usually found in religious zealotry.
From experience of the UK scene I'd assert that populist tactic number one is to stoke up fears of immigrant invasions - taking 'our' jobs and using up 'our' public sevices.
I think that people are tired of how ineffectual recent governments have been and how ridiculous the other side is. I think the 2016 US election showed two extremely flawed candidates and ideologies battling it out. In EU the situation isn't much different, it's populism vs leftists and the two have a lot in common. They demonise, they hyperbolise, they're self-righteous and they categorise people by their groups. I don't think that either will last forever but I'm also not convinced they'll be going away soon.
Quoting Tim3003
Terrapin gave the definition of populism. What you (Tim3003) describe is someone using a populist style to trick voters (which might be more common, haha).
In the US populism largely began with Andrew Jackson. Although he was an ass, he spoke directly to voters and promised to address issues that they could understand and cared about. Prior to Jackson, we had things like the Federalist Papers where politicians argued and tried to convince Americans of their ideals through a series of long essays - notice this is NOT going to appeal to the common man.
MANY modern politicians are populists. If we need examples on the left Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren come to mind. The 2% wealth tax to pay for free college is a populist idea (I happen to like it, but it is very populist). Ranting against wall street and the big banks is populist (the average American will never attempt to actually understand this stuff, so Bernie just hits the emotional highs).
When do politicians give serious consideration to compromise? When do politicians suggest we have to face difficulties if we really want things to change? These are truths of governing that populists will avoid.
In today's hyper-partisan world where citizens hear every word and thought of every person running for office, if you are not a populist, you will lose.
Quoting Pfhorrest
This seems pretty accurate :up:
In the UK, after the 2008 crash we had an election in 2010, and the new coalition govt was open about the need to restore the public finances. This led to a squeeze on spending, large cuts, and 8 years of austerity. It's only in the last year or two that this period of austerity has been ended. It was handy that they could blame the deficit on the previous govt, but they were open about the challenges ahead, and dilligent about seeing it through in the face of opposition outcry. Indeed David Cameron won the 2015 election against the background of cuts, so honesty can prove successful sometimes..
Remember the Liberals' 'personal pledge' to save student grants? Reactionary 'honesty' can 'prove successful' only if backed by total lies, surely?
That sounds a bit unfair. As the junior partners in the coalition govt the Lib Dems could not hope to get all their manifesto pledges into the joint policy agreement. As the Tories did not like the scrapping of tuition fees it was axed. Being the govt they were then obliged to vote with the Tories on the subject. I have thought the Lib Dems were unfairly lambasted for this 'breaking of a pledge' ever since. Maybe people in the UK need to learn how coalition govts work.
Why? If they'd given a personal pledge, they shouldn't have put the tories in power to do something else, surely? They were backing them because they chose to.
I think one can talk about it as a movement sweeping the Western world.
One reason is the new social media that has made this possible with the algorithm driven media assists and encourages rather rude and aggressive views. The internet companies were far too naive in thinking what the free internet would start to look when masses of people start to use it. One supporting factor is the status of English as a lingua Universalis: media frenzies become global very easily.
And populism creates instinctively something that could be called "counter-populism", which typically goes with a similar attitudes against the populists and divide people the to 'the common people' vs. 'the populists and their supporters'. Hence you get this not so cordial environment.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is so true. I've pointed out in many threads pointed out that this isn't something inherently right-wing. The confrontational demagoguery and divisive rhetoric of the elite vs the people can and has been used also by the left.
Of course with Trump it is about right-wing populism. Perhaps the reason is with the death of the Soviet Union and Marxism-Leninism free market capitalism, globalism, doesn't have to be defended in a such way by the right as it was done before. The combination of nativism a left-wing dominated media environment and globalism advocated by a centrist elite creates a fertile ground for right-wing populism.
During 8 years of austerity (that you mentioned is coming to an end), Britain's national debt increased. Why not make it austere enough to have an impact? Why is it ending when "progress" has been so slow? I get that the deficit has dropped significantly since 2007-2008, but a large chunk of that would have occurred anyway as the economy recovered. The UK is still running a deficit, with austerity ending wouldn't we expect that to start trending up again (in a few years, I think they have planned budgets for a while)?
With the current accessibility of information, along with higher education levels, it seems that ANY modern democracy will be at the whims of populists. Why would voters vote for people they don't understand who offer benefits that don't apply to the voter?
If a simple view of "populism" would be the political version of "give the people what they want", then of course it will dominate in an open democracy. None of us know the best way to govern, but we all know what we want.
It seems only "tradition" (religion, party preference, allegiances, etc) would convince commoners away from a populist vote (damn that sounds condescending, to clarify, I would count myself as a commoner, generally).
That would then entail that some kind of socialism should dominate in an open democracy, whether under that name or not, since the thing that most people want is the easement of their material suffering, and since wealth and income are distributed in such a way that most people have far less than the average (mean), the vast majority of people could get that material suffering eased at the expense of the tiny minority who hold all the wealth.
Put it this way: if a law were passed that levied a tax of X% of your income but gave you a tax credit of X% the mean income, in a country with an income distribution like the US about 75% of people would get more than they pay, and the whole thing would be neutral on the national budget because that's how math works. (Assuming X<100).
Yet people don't vote for things like that. Which suggests either that your thesis is wrong, or that we don't really have an open democracy. I lean toward the latter.
Good example of how a populist would NOT phrase their argument, haha. (that probably shows you are actually analyzing what good governance entails)
In America, the average voter is one good break from being a millionaire (in their minds), so that is why they would not vote for their own best interest. They were sold (and bought) a different populist lie.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Well based on life experience betting on me being wrong is safe :smile: But I would agree that our democracy is limited. But I can think of one major populist idea that might push a little blame onto voters (in America anyway):
That which governs best is that which governs least...or government is bad.
My parents raised me on this garbage. And it was pure dogma. For the last 10-15 years I have called out that bullshit with evidence at every opportunity (in the gentlest and most respectful way possible, haha). They are starting to see the light (still republican, but at least anti-trump and realize that if small government is better, then there should be evidence, and they can't find it).
If we look at populism in Scandinavian countries, it has resulted (at least more so) in many of the policies you would expect.
I think the governing principle is not whether there is a deficit, but how large it is, and whether it is less than the rate of inflation. So if inflation is at the 2% target and the deficit is 1.5% then the total debt is increasing at less than inflation - ie decreasing in real terms. Interest rates also have a bearing. As they are now so low both govt and opposition are happy to borrow more. Infact they are talking about instituting new targets for the annual repayment of debt as a % of gdp (I think of ~3% for the Tories and ~5% for Labour), rather than just aiming to limit the size of the deficit.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I think that's too black and white. It ignores the huge bulk of the middle class, who are not 'suffering' and who have aspirations to be richer and more successful; also, the aspirational working classes, who espouse hard work and want to improve their lot - whether via freedom to pursue 'The American dream' or just wanting to beat their neighbours you can debate over. As you say, socialist policies would dominate if the easing of poverty was the populist view.
This is what happened in Venezuela recently. A socialist government voted into power by a populist platform raised taxes and gave the money to the poor. The result was a collapse of the economy with runaway inflation, despite the country having huge oil reserves.
Populism and the divide to "the elite" and "the common people" needs basically an agenda that the so-called mainstream parties either aren't or seem not to be doing anything about. There has to be something that creates in reality or in the minds of people this divide. Otherwise it's really a fringe group of conspiracy buffs that are quite hilarious.
Populism isn't tied at all to the current situation. For example, before the 1990's here (in Finland) there was basically no immigration to the country by foreigners and the percentage of foreign born people something around 1%. Obviously immigration wasn't then the hot potato, hence the populists were campaigning in the 1980's against corruption (in one of the least corrupt countries in the World).
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Openly populist parties emphasize this and their idea of populism leaves out (at least officially) the crucial ingredient: that populism has the important division to "us" and "them" and that "they", the elite, the establishment, the powers at be, are against their ideas.
There's a distinct difference in saying normal democratic movement "We want this and the leaders should listen to us" and a populist movement "We want this and the leaders are against what we want".
That seems a bit constructed to me. There is a bunch of emotional needs that people also want fulfilled. People will also not necessarily be aware of what exactly these needs are and how to fulfill them. People also carry a lot of stone-age politics around with them.
There is not a huge bulk of middle class. That was my point. About 75% of people make less than the mean income. About 50% of people make less than HALF of the mean income, i.e. the median is half the mean. The mode (the amount that the largest group makes) is close to half of the median, or a quarter of the mean. The vast, vast majority of people are way, way below average.
If you taxed everyone half of their income and gave them half of the mean income in return, more than half of the population would profit from that to the tune of over $1000/mo, and half of the remainder (the third quarter) would still profit more than they lost, most of the last quarter would lose very little because most of them aren't very far above the mean, and nobody in the country would make less (after taxes) than what is currently the median income.
But like you, they don't realize that, which is probably why they're not in favor of policies that would help the poor. They don't realize that they are the poor.
I don't think the mean income has any meaning in a distribution where the high figures are so huge compared to the lower ones. What are the actual figures? I think in the UK poverty is defined as half the median, but I'm guessing there's less income inequality here than in the US - although the gap has probably narrowed over the last decade.
I think a lot of the frustration that breeds fertile ground for populist seeds to root comes from a sense of powerlessness. People don't mind others getting on, but they mind having no means to improve their lots, and being vulnerable to the greed of others. The 2008 crisis, where a small number of bankers played fast and loose - effectivley with the western economies, has left a huge amount of anger. Why should ordinary people trust these 'elites', when it's clear they're irresponsible and only out for ther own good? We've also had a scandal here where MPs were found to be cheating on their expense claims - some claiming money for ludicrous reasons. That too dented public confidence, although compared to other countries where corruption is endemic we probably have it good.
The referendum on leaving the EU here produced a surprise 'leave' result. The extent to which people wanted to kick the establishment was not recognised. But there is a view that especially among the older generation part of the reason for the leave vote was people wanting to turn the clock back, to return to a pre-globalised economy, to 'get our country back'. The naiivety of this view is clear but that doesnt stop it persisting. Most people are still tied to the view of 'their' nation state repelling foreign invaders when necessary. This is surely another good chord for populists to strike, as many have.
That huge difference between high and low figures is exactly what I'm talking about, and what makes it the case that the vast majority of people would benefit greatly from something that just moved them closer to average: because only a tiny number of people get most of the money. Approximate figures from memory: the mean personal income is about $50k/yr (which falls at about the 75th percentile), the median personal income is about $25k/yr, and the mode personal income (that I recall less clearly) is about $13-15k/yr. (I remember it being just slightly more than half the median). Household income figures (more commonly reported) are about twice that, because households on average have about two people in them.
Quoting Tim3003
I think the poverty line in the US is defined at the bottom quintile.
What's wrong with that?
Quoting Pfhorrest
Which btw shows how absolutely useless it is as a mark of povetry: no matter what happens there is a bottom quintile. It says nothing about actual povetry or how prosperous we are than earlier.
Good argument support and thanks for informing me.
Even given this, is it safe to assume that austerity measures will have to be implemented again in a never ending cycle? However, why does austerity (or, strong desire for a balanced budget) go in waves? If it is important, shouldn't we make permanent changes? Is the austerity needed for a balanced budget anywhere near the austerity required for a balanced environment? (I get that as a whole, we have not decided we want a balanced environment...but I can also find plenty of economists that will argue that a balanced budget is not that important)
Quoting Tim3003
I think easing poverty is A populist view. I am a bit confused by THE populist view. Trump and Bernie are both populists. The populism of "the american dream" still just has more support than the populism of reducing poverty. (in America, things are different in Scandinavia) But it does feel like the populism of "billionaire's suck" is catching up with the american dream.
At this point, I am not sure if I am disagreeing with you or just addressing certain nuances of your argument? Oh well, feel free to set me straight :smile:
Quoting ssu
I am confused. I thought the current situation is nothing but elite bashing. One side bashes government elites while the other is bashing corporate elites.
Hmmm, oh, you are specifically referring to Scandinavia? Where government and big business was on-board with greater social welfare systems?
Wouldn't they still be acting against international elites? Isn't socialism (ideally) against any type of "elite"? (which gets weird as surely there are still "elite" athletes, mathematicians, good looking people, or online forum administrators) Isn't any progressive tax system acknowledging that one type of "elite" exists?
I think this might be another example of me going overboard on minutia/semantics?
The antipole of populism is always the establishment and its attraction is stability. People don’t get overly excited by it, but their conservative instinct make them lean towards what they already know.
These two opposing mechanisms are always present in a population. The establishment will normally have the upper hand until a time of crisis occurs or until it has exhausted its internal potential.
In all mature democracies we see how the established parties gradually move towards the middle where most of the voters are found. The major parties then become increasingly similar and that may cause an existential crisis within them. Why fight for one particular party or candidate when the others are almost the same? Enthusiasm wanes and more extreme populists take advantage of that.
This has been a gradual process in European countries during the last decades as most of them have seen the rise of populist parties.
In America there has always been a stronger element of populism within the established parties, which until recently kept full blown populism at bay. However, it was always latent, and with the accidental arrival of Trump, its potential was exploited.
I think that that's a fairly accurate albeit rough summary of the difference. However, some left populism doesn't vilify ownership so much as elected officials who knowingly act against the people when a conflict of interest arises between huge corporations or their own personal interests(these are often one in the same), and common people.
Just to be clear: the populism I'm talking about is that espoused by Trump, the Brexit Party and others who promote nationalism at the cost of demonising immigrants. Other policies could be said to be based on what the people want or what is best for them, but that's not what I'm majoring on here.
Part of the reason for this thread is to discuss the point that far from giving the people what they actually want or need, this populism is a con whose primary aim is power for the leaders like Trump who preach it. Thus it's no more a force for improvement in society than was the credo of Hitler. If it spreads, as the increasing mobility of poor or war-ravaged populations seem to threaten it could, what will the future look like? The more public fear is whipped up the more dictators can seem acceptable as the antidote. I don't think it's coincidence that, whatever destabilising tactics the Russian use internationally, Trump unashamedly admires Putin..
I agree that this type of populism thrives on people not knowing what is best for them. But I would still argue that Trump is often giving the people (those people) EXACTLY what they want (demonizing immigrants).
Quoting Tim3003
A hammer can be a force for improvement or a force for destruction.
I get (now) that the points I have brought up are not what you are hoping to discuss in this thread, and so I will stop. I should at least make an effort to address the points you care about so here goes:
Quoting Tim3003
I agree this would be a problem, but what can be done about it? I feel there is just as much anti-Trump (anti-brexit, anti-(white)nationalism, etc) sentiment out there. Either people accept the ideas or not? We may have some power of persuasion over people that care about us, I have talked my Mom out of voting Republican - at least for now - and I am making progress with my Dad, but I doubt I have convinced anyone online. Except for some fairly extreme authoritarian policies (which I am open too, but I get that most Americans and many others are strongly opposed), how would we prevent the spread?
The only positive it seems, is that as the right gets more extreme, people are more open to extreme left positions. Who would have thought 20 years ago we would have mainstream candidates that are openly advocating socialist policies? (100 years ago it looked possible, but things shifted strongly in the opposite direction in the 80s)
Quoting Tim3003
And stuff like this is how we can convince those open to convincing (typically just those who care about us). Trump's admiration of Putin is perhaps the major reason my Dad will NOT vote for Trump (again, ugh) in 2020. You just have to phrase it like a populist (haha): "so paying 1.3% less in taxes this year is worth our President being buddies with Putin (the murdering, ex kgb, thief, richest man in the world, tyrant)."
What are your thoughts on how things get better? Or is this thread highlighting your fear that things are unlikely to improve?
Well, those who have bashed in history government and corporate elites have been, just to give some examples, a) communists b) national socialists, c) various socialists, d) Occupy Wall street-movement, e) Tea party-movement, f) Trump supporters, g) Brexiteers... and the list goes on.
That's a quite varied group with perhaps the only thing common for them is the idea of the evil elites. That's my point.
Quoting ZhouBoTong
Once populists are in power, they surely change the focus from evil domestic elites to evil international elites. Populism needs a culprit, an adversary or an enemy.
What Trump and other populists give people is what they feel they want. ie feel, from their uneducated fear-propelled guts. His means is to exploit base fears, not to educate in the realities of the situation, its perspective, or what future knock-on effects short-termist policies can have. Populism is a politics not of reason but of ignorance and fear. That's what separates it from communism, socialism, liberalism, all of which have some philosophiccal basis which their politicians can hope voters learn and agree with rationally.
I'm sure Trump's supporters don't especially want to hate immigrants, but they are scared into seeing immigrants as threats to their jobs and culture, and their fear is whipped into prejudice and nationalism by liars and distorters like Trump. That's happened throughout history. Its human nature for the strong to exploit the weak I'm afraid.
Perhaps my fear is that despite the huge growth of internet communication and the potential raising in peoples' education, societies instead become more fear-based. The new tools of individually targeted (social) media news are used ever more accurately to misinform and so exploit fears. It's a trait of authoritarianism to manipulate the media and ensure only the 'right' news is published. In a world where no-one any longer trusts any news media outlet who is to be believed? Maybe only the 'reassuring' voice of the President?
The best hope of things getting better seems to me that populism fails to achieve its goals: ie Trump cannot bring sustainable jobs back form China and runs up a crushing trade deficit. The trouble is, that won't kill the ogre of nationalism and fear of foreigners, it may even make it worse.
Who claims to know what is best for these people? The “elites”. The “Davos man”. The elites, of course, live no where near these people, nor hardly interact with them unless it is to be served by them. And they would know what is best for us?
Or have you heard about the political movement that declares that they don't know what's best for the people? :yikes:
Besides, the elite seldom truly thinks about what would be best for the people. It would be great if they actual would do that. But usually it's only this condescending snobbery of how stupid the common people are and how they don't get the complex issues at all, or take it the wrong way. And this snobbery can be seen on both sides of the political spectrum. Traditionalist conservative elites and the leftist cultural elites can equally look down upon the common man.
And of course, the common man usually isn't as interested and have as much knowledge of the most complex issues of politics.
Quoting NOS4A2
Does the Davos man really exist? Really? There can be people that are invited to the "World Economic Forum" and go there on a usual basis, but in the end this hodgepodge of rich and powerful people don't truly share the same agenda or objectives. That's the conspiracy bullshit of Alex Jones. If you just listen for a while the panels, it ought to be obvious that they don't all agree on what to do. It's actually a perfect example of the conspiratorial side of populism.
But the “common man” knows what’s best for himself is my point. The idea that people vote against their best interests is, as you said, snobbery. The accusation could be just as easily used against them.
You listen to Alex Jones?
I use “Davos man” strictly as a term of derision. What I can say of them is they have enough power and wealth to affect vast communities of human beings while being at the same time wealthy enough to avoid the barriers they set for others, and to abandon ship if their schemes go awry.
And let's not forget that the Common Man is simply a myth.
The Common Man is both a Republican and a Democrat in the US, both an active voter and someone who hasn't bothered to vote. To say that the 'common man' thinks this or that is as wrong as to think that the 'poor' or the 'middle class' or the 'upper class' thinks in one certain way.
Quoting NOS4A2
Few times I listened to him, but not anymore. I always thought of him as entertainment and someone that has found his niche audience in the American media field. First he was all about 9/11 conspiracies and even didn't notice the financial crisis. Only when it had long started, Jones added economics into the conspiracies (which actually was telling). But then with the Trump candidacy Mr Jones went to become a true Goebbels like propagandist. Perhaps it's the "logical" response to a person that believes in vast conspiracy theories: if you believe everything is propaganda, then you'll do the same and simply create classic propaganda yourself too. Anyway, there is this problem with the conspiracy buffs: they are an extremely intolerant crowd that isn't open to other kind of ideas (starting from the idea that historical events can happen without anyone actually planning them).
Quoting NOS4A2
Well, for many he exists. Just like the Cultural Marxist that has lurked in the universities and planned all the wokeness and political correctness we see everywhere now.
My point was that each individual, no matter how you classify them, knows what’s in his best interests better than some aloof technocrat who spent his whole life in a classroom. I’d rather be governed by those who work in my local grocery store than the entire faculty at Harvard.
The only intolerant bigots are those who ban others. The intolerant crowd colluded in one concerted effort to have him removed from platforms.
And that's why we have a representative democracy in our republics. And unlike the US, here we don't even have things like felony disenfranchisement.
Quoting NOS4A2
Call it a ban or not, but the conspiracy buffs don't take it lightly when someone that has argued that one conspiracy is true then states that another one isn't. Or that the government / security system performs well in other issues or is correct in some other case. Likely he or she will be seen as a "turncoat" who has "sold" the cause, gone over back or perhaps been always on the other side. Once your audience and income depends on a specific crowd, then you will shape your message to that crowd.
Quoting Tim3003
This positioning of “Trump supporters”, whatever that is, as “uneducated” seems a little lazy. You’d need to define “educated” first and then, I suspect, your definition would be biased. There’s a feeling, or attitude, towards these people that they’re not educated well enough to vote, that they’re not smart enough. Let’s ignore the fact that you can’t lump Trump supporters into one basket. If I was one of those people I might begin to suspect that you might think it’s a good idea if I didn’t vote, to take that right away from me. If I felt that way which way do you think I might vote next time?
Quoting Tim3003
This comment is streaked with vague sort of surface facts that suggest something but when you read it amounts to nothing but a bias or prejudice. So it’s not just a Trump supporters who are the problem, but the older generation as well?
“ there is a view ”. Whose view?
“ part of the reason for the leave vote ”. What part? Was it a minor part or major part?
“ The naiivety of this view is clear”. The view they’re supposedly naive about is the view you ascribe to them. And what’s clear about it?
Like your view of a Trump supporters you ascribe your perception of the older generation then argue with that to prove them wrong.
Perhaps their point of view is not from naivity but a view born of long term observation and experience.
Well potentially yes, in the same way that a doctor knows best as to how to treat a sick or injured person (doesn't the sick person know himself better than the doctor?). There are a lot of different kinds of "elite".
As education has become more democratized and accessible, society has become increasingly demanding that all opinions and ideas have value. From here, we have grown to the point that all opinions have nearly equal values. As long as we continue to foster this idea (and it is heavily fostered - young people are constantly reminded that they have valuable opinions), then rhetoric like that used by populists will thrive (as it is the most effective means of persuading people).
While we have increased the amount of education received by the average person, at no point do we do emotional training (or perhaps more accurately, anti-emotional training). If people are unaware of the power of their emotions, then they will be controlled by them...and a good speaker can target those emotional responses without having to say anything of substance.