Perhaps it's too easy to add in an "-ism," and then extrapolate what the movement means, by comparing with what was labeled with a similar "-ism" in the past. Often, this tactic is used to dismiss and discredit whatever one doesn't approve of?

Today's so-called populist movements are not so much attempts of an elite few to grab power - quite the opposite. Todays' so-called populist movements, in the West, are more a reaction of the common man/woman, to what they perceive as having been a long-term effort by such political elites, to erode the well-being of the masses, in pursuit of their own political ambitions. Or said another way, the average man/woman feeling that they have been taken advantage of, by the professionally-political class (long-term, professional politicians).

Today's "populists" identify themselves as not having been members of the professionally-political elite.

As to the level of naiveté of the average person, and the level of "worship" of the average person for their chosen set of political elites, I'm not sure anyone can credibly make the case that right, left, "populists," or centrists, have a leg up on their opponents, in this regard. My own suggestion is that naiveté can be estimated to be directly proportional to one's level of True Belief in their Cause. All political movements have their True Believers. My contention is that democracies require a certain healthy level of skepticism on the part of the voters, and any form to political worship only weakens the democracy.

This is a very good, timely question.

A start on an answer to this question is given in

Populism Is Hegemony Is Politics? On Ernesto Laclau's On Populist Reason

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229601476_Populism_Is_Hegemony_Is_Politics_On_Ernesto_Laclau's_On_Populist_Reason

In this paper, there is a tendency to conclude that politics is identified with hegemony, i.e., politics as dominance by one state or social group over others.

A more sedate view of populism is given in

BENJAMIN MOFFITT AND SIMON TORMEY© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies AssociationPOLITICAL STUDIES: 2014, 62(2)

Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261534164_Rethinking_Populism_Politics_Mediatisation_and_Political_Style

Moffitt and Tormey present a critique of dominant conceptions of populism, and introduces thecategory of‘political style’as a new compelling way of thinking about the phenomenon.

The worrisome aspect of populism is the tendency to replace "governing for the greater good" with "governing to champion a cause".

Article Populism Is Hegemony Is Politics? On Ernesto Laclau's On Pop...

Article Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style

Dear Michael Lersow,

Populism is a form of relations between society and power, in which political power belongs to a small group of people who use methods of manipulation on behalf of some other, more significant and usually less developed in terms of political consciousness, social group or even a whole class of citizens.

Regards, Shafagat

 Dear Mr. Lersow,

Populism has occured many times in the human history and this will never end. Politics in many aspects is done by some elite groups that will do everything that is possible to maintain its hegemony. To achieve this it is necessary to develop a way of controlling the people. They will tell to the people what the people want to hear, they give them a false idea that their political aims are the best way to solve all the problems of a society. This will work pretty well in periods of national crisis, where a true " populist leadership" seems to be the only way of saving a people, a nation etc. For a while it will work without problems, but after a period the citizens will see this populism as a kind of dictartoship and as a mass controlling system. 

Regards,Ivson

Dear Shafagat, dear James, dear Ivson Ferreira,

I also believe that this issue could be interesting, because there is a lot of talk about it in Europe and North America. I also believe that this issue is should not left to politicians or policy-makers, because politics, at least in democratic states, should go out from the people and politicians, parliaments, and constitutional bodies and should reflect the respective society.

I agree with Ivson Ferreira, except for one point. Populism is not only present in the political crisis, but it is also an integral part of politics. Populism is not per se bad. Actually it is the task of voters and the political system to recognize populist politics and to stand up for it that populism is not sprawling but realpolitik becomes dominant. But without a little populism, it gets boring. It is the task of the political system to bind voters, to promote political goals, and ultimately to provide stability. If this is no longer possible, the political system must change, not the voters

Populism is a form of opportunism, in which a politician or even a whole party promises the people what they want to hear. The opportunism denotes the appropriate adaptation to the respective situation or position.

In a democracy this seems to be a promising way to win voters. A populist does not necessarily have to orient himself to all voters, but can also address a certain part of the electorate as a left or right populist, whom he would like to please.

Extremely left and right populism or Nazi populism is, of course, dangerous and should be combated by democratic means. In contrast to this are demagogues, which are a particularly dangerous species in real crisis situations. These should we not a chance given.

"Demagogy, who, on a favorable occasion, publicly promotes a political goal by flattering the masses, appealing to their feelings, instincts and prejudices, making themselves guilty by libel and lies, truth exaggerated or grossly simplified.” Martin Morlock 1977

It has never been so good, we have never had more freedom, there have never been more opportunities to realize ourselves, and yet there is a disturbance and a lot of populism in the European societies. For me, is that a sign that many more people want to participate in daily politics and want see, their opinions realized in real politics.

This will certainly not be shared by anyone.

Thanks for your discussion

Michael Lersow

The issue is relative: the people have a general culture that can stop the intervention, feeling that this leads to chaos, which is what Europe and its people have done. Or in the Middle East, the intervention of the people will lead to the tragedy that the extremist Islamic culture will lead the situation Which would benefit from it

Dear Michael, thank for you interesting question & discussion.

I am not sure, but i remark to see in this time more often the term, originate from "pop" :

- "populist" , pop-music, POP-art and not "demos" and "democrats" .

"peuple" ("Populist" ... l' existence d'une volonté commune du peuple)

I think that is very bad

Dear Marpha,

Pop music (from popular music) is a musical form, which has emerged mainly from the rock 'n' roll, beat music and folk since the 1950s.

The term populism (from Latin populus, "people"):

"Populists want that what they hold for the will of the majority - often driven by a charismatic populist leader - push through."

It is a little bit different!

In our information society, one uses oneself fake news more and more frequently. This has nothing to do with populism and is charlatanry.

Due to the immense number of daily information, it is virtually impossible to examine all contents to proof on truth and then explains it to the electorate in good time.

Kind Regards

Michael Lersow

To N.Khrushchov, "Politicians are the same everywhere - they promise to build a bridge there, where there is no any river at all". I think, it's a political propaganda, on the one hand and on the other hand, implicit, naked faith of the naive ordinary people as well as vehement faith of the people, admitted to participate in "a feeding trough" and sinecure. Surely, naive faith can be undermined at any time. But it is not really important. Propaganda causes ideological antagonism among people, and it's an effective tool of manipulation and pressure."Us and them"!- the oldest method of the rulers. Progress is characteristic of Nature. Regression is a special feature of society.

"Art of the lie"http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/artofthelie  

Perhaps it's too easy to add in an "-ism," and then extrapolate what the movement means, by comparing with what was labeled with a similar "-ism" in the past. Often, this tactic is used to dismiss and discredit whatever one doesn't approve of?

Today's so-called populist movements are not so much attempts of an elite few to grab power - quite the opposite. Todays' so-called populist movements, in the West, are more a reaction of the common man/woman, to what they perceive as having been a long-term effort by such political elites, to erode the well-being of the masses, in pursuit of their own political ambitions. Or said another way, the average man/woman feeling that they have been taken advantage of, by the professionally-political class (long-term, professional politicians).

Today's "populists" identify themselves as not having been members of the professionally-political elite.

As to the level of naiveté of the average person, and the level of "worship" of the average person for their chosen set of political elites, I'm not sure anyone can credibly make the case that right, left, "populists," or centrists, have a leg up on their opponents, in this regard. My own suggestion is that naiveté can be estimated to be directly proportional to one's level of True Belief in their Cause. All political movements have their True Believers. My contention is that democracies require a certain healthy level of skepticism on the part of the voters, and any form to political worship only weakens the democracy.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all, 

Readers of this thread may find the following short video of interest.

Global Ethics Forum: The Populist Explosion with John B. Judis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-QzDq-FE14

This video runs about 27 Min. John B. Judis is a political journalist who published a recent book on populism.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Howard G. Callaway,

many thanks for the thread. Not only interesting but John B. Judis Is known as the best connoisseur of populism. Some see in Abraham Lincoln as the founder of populism - "government of the people, for the people and by the people".

Populism has always existed, and without populism and populists the liberally democracy probably also is inconceivable.

However, I think there are several influences that make the respective deocratic systems are difficult to create.

a) the dramatic growth of daily information, the growing possibilities of disinformation, the growing number of fake news and outside (foreign) influence (cyber)

b) the base of democratic systems who are not prepared for it and have to learn this (lesson learned). However, it seems to me that the US with the "checks and balances" for it are better prepared.

Europe must pay particular attention to extreme right-wing and link populism. It seems as if this can be done well.

Regards

Michael Lersow

my dear,i agree wtih H.G. Callaway ·

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lersow & readers, 

I thought the Judis interview very good. He knows the history of American populism and a good deal about the conditions under which it has periodically returned. I am pleased that you found something of value in the video. 

Of particular importance is the stress which Judis places on the contrasting styles and reception of populism in the U.S. and in Europe. I agree, of course, that the American system of checks and balances is very well suited to control excesses of the executive (though more domestically than in foreign affairs --where the American President is very powerful). 

He also emphasizes the point that there are both "left" and "right" varieties of populism in the U.S. Senator Sanders, for example, significantly effected the plans and prospects of the more establishment, Clintonite Democrats in the last electoral season. This division of the populists diminishes the hold or tendency toward purely ethnic nationalism.

I would think to go back to the "People's party" of the late 19th century in the U.S. and William Jennings Bryant. The movement arose from the small farmers of the West and the South in opposition to the Republican domination of the federal government during the Gilded Age. They put up a good fight. The movement was eventually absorbed into the Democratic party (though Republican T.R. Roosevelt also appealed to many) at the time of President Wilson. Bryant became Secretary of State under Wilson. In general, the populists were absorbed into American progressivism --of which there were both Democrat and Republican versions. But after the progressive era, the Republicans returned to dominate the 1920's.  

H.G. Callaway

Dear Howard G. Callaway,

Very good comment.

That problem is only, that the parties system and the constitution in the European countries is different to U.S.and not compatible.

One can indeed learn a lot from each other but transfer very little.

I had mentioned the problem of influencing the media, data spreading systems, social medias etc.

A second problem is that it is much easier in Europe by elections to get into the constitutional bodies.

This once has already gone wrong

Regards

Michael Lersow

Dear all,

Populism is a symptom of political and economic failures of societies that are hypnotized to believe all things  that existing political and economic structures will bring dreams of citizens to reality, as long as citizens do the right things  in freedom. But what people realized is that,  the existing political and economic structures and the people who run them on the frontiers are like someone trickster telling a person to follow a path that takes him/her to the best place to be, knowing that the path is endless and person will never reach to such a place but as a result of hypnosis will keep going and eventually will die on the way without reaching the promised place as there is none. Such fallacies are identified by society today when  problems arise exponentially from generation to generation and  failures of dreams become the modes vivendi of the youth and society in general and suffrage continues to increase, although doing the right things. 

The absence of practicality in the theory and the unreasonable stretch of pseudo reasoning  to make hypnotic validations of economic gains and success of life for all, creates uproar and  revolution like  populism across the globe. Today's populism is similar to the revolutions of the 60's and 70's in which the educated and the youth revolted against existing rulers demanding resignations, confiscating resources and other structures of business  and be owned by the people so that life is bearable for all, not for only handful few who controlled everything. 

Political and economic structures of societies are not religious structures, where only believing is required and that alone gives the needed satisfaction. People need tangible results, results to make the promised economic gains and enjoy better living standards. Therefore the choice between leading a life of suffrage on the streets and for a hope in the sky  continuously  causes society to rethink what indeed democracy is and what good it has for them. 

Regards,

Dejenie

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lakew & readers,

Briefly stated, our general economic and social prospects cannot be allowed to become a matter of "bait and switch !"  The domination of clever, insider and self-serving politics is no substitute for reasonable social and economic policy. 

This is the language of America's left populism--as in most of the Occupy Movement of some years back. Such a thing becomes possible only by risk of personal alienation from a powerful establishment. 

Notice Lersow's comment on the U.S. and Europe:

"One can indeed learn a lot from each other but transfer very little." 

H.G. Callaway 

Dear Dejenie & all readers,

I have asked the question here because I come to a different assessment than you. Of course I can not claim that my assessment is correct and yours wrong.

My assessment is that we will always have populists in politics who want to gain power, regardless of the state of society. Even if we would live in paradise, a populist would appear and claim that there is another paradise where it is much nicer and we will be much better live there and we can only reach this paradise with him.

Because the populist can only achieve the power in our countries through democratic elections, the voters are in the way of the populist.

Or else, when we know the populists, they'll have a hard way to coming to power.

I do not want to say that there is better politics without populists.

My concern, that it is in Europe possible again that radical populists can get into the constitutional bodies or what is the best protection against it.

Perhaps we have the lesson learned? Perhaps. In every case we need to be wachtful, especially in the Media`s society.

Sincerely yours

Michael Lersow

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lersow & contributors,

I think we should not expect too much precision in the meaning and usage of political terms such as "populism." The contrast between the American and European usages and connotations is perhaps sufficient to illustrate the point. In general terms, emphasis on the (comparative) lack of precision in politics goes back to Aristotle. We should not expect greater precision than a particular subject-matter may allow. This is perhaps the original rejection of "scientism." 

With that kind of point in mind, it strikes me that you employ the term more broadly than most people. For example, you enlist President Lincoln among the populists on the grounds of his claims for "government of the people, by the people and for the people." But I think this would often be taken as indicating commitment to democracy. Surely, not everyone committed to democratic forms is thereby a populist. One might reasonably claim, say, that President Jefferson was a populist and also President Jackson. Lincoln was a confessed Jeffersonian, but I would not call him a Jacksonian. Admittedly there are family resemblances and continuities between populism and commitment to democratic forms, but there are also important contrasts. 

I'm inclined to think of populism as a recurrent phenomenon but not a continuous political phenomenon. It arises in particular sorts of circumstances which amplify the power of political and social elites. As I understand the matter, e.g., what happened in the late 19th century in the U.S. had a great deal to do with the Civil War. At the end of the war, the southerners who had supported the Confederacy were disqualified from holding federal offices, and generally, the power of the South in the federal government was greatly reduced. But the South had traditionally been the advocate of lower taxes on manufactured imports. In consequence, tariffs on  imports went sky high, which benefited the northern manufacturers, who could sell their products at higher prices. At the same time, agricultural producers from the South and West had to sell their products at world prices. The consequences of all this was that the farmers and agricultural interests were impoverished. That in turn gave rise to the populist movement. 

Generally, then, the argument is that populism is something (more) specific which arises when the advantages going to elites tend to impoverish great numbers in the general population. Still, given varying political contexts, their will be varieties of populism and related negative consequences, as you have justly emphasized. 

H.G. Callaway

Michael,

Your description of the ''the populist'' seems to me a description of the  ''the demagogue''.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue :: ''A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation.[1][2][3][4] Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.''

 While there is a genuine ''populism'' as described by Callaway that results as a abuse of the elites.  The demaguoe may take advantage of the genuine ''populism'' but a leader of a ''genuine populism'' is not necessarily a demagogue.  Demagogue are usually not successfull in times where the condition of living of the average population are improving and every one imagine that the future is bright.  These short period of imagined paradize on earth are not times of demagogue contrary to your statement that they would be demagogue in paradize.  They might be, but nobody pay attention to them.  The after WWII golden age of capitalism in the west was not a time of demagogue.  But now the western youth in general is not convinced as my own generation at their age, that their future is bright, nor their current situation. The percentage of the GNP going to the middle class have been declining at an exponential rate since 30 years,  The GNP keep growing but the GDP's part going to the middle class keep shrinking.  This a cause of a genuine populism.

Dear Michael,

Your points are well taken but uproar from genuine reason and habitual and always different is better kind of cry are not the same. We are living in the troubled society and we are part of the people who have nothing and who live a life on the boundary line between existence and non existence and that is the case with almost all who participate in current populism of condemning the existing pseudo political economic structure with a glittering facade of democracy and freedom  while the very tiny section  behind the facade live beyond what is thousand  fold of necessity of living.

Look today, almost all retailing store are closing, full time jobs disappearing decades ago and replaced with part time jobs with very minimal income, without any subsidy  and the middle class of society, the very agent of positive economic dynamism disappearing from our own face and the human society collectively becoming economically extinct and eventually will disappear peacefully from existence.  These are serious problems where responsible members of society should be worried about. Every production and service offering businesses will have life only when there are people who buy products and utilize service so that finance circulates in society as oxygen does in our body system. But that is not what is happening now and society gets  deadly economic stroke.  

I heard in an interview from Russia the other day of a young man why the people are out there crying foul on the ruling elites, because he said, life is no more living but street living, no food, no clothing, no jobs and nothing,  while very few who are connected to the privileged of the tiny few are swimming on  gold and make a living.

This is the case across the glob, where nepotism, corruption, social irresponsibility and sheer disdain for common good are the scepter and rule of the thumb of today's living. Any populism that is erupted from such real magma of life is worth to see.  

Regards,

Dejenie Alemayehu Lakew 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Lakew,

A very passionate statement of the adverse economic conditions that many, many people feel !  It is not merely the Trump voters, and the difficulties cut across regional and ethnic or racial differences. Recall the appeal of Senator Sanders in the recent U.S. election season. Recall the Occupy Movement, and all those who lost their homes in the Great Recession. 

Bravo! Now, what are the needed solution? Admittedly, they will not be the same everywhere. 

But, it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

H.G.Callaway 

Dear Dejenie Alemayehu, Dear Luis, Dear Horward G. Callaway & all readers,

The discussion on researchgate is that's why for so interesting, because it shows a broad spectrum of discutants. A wide range of social constructions that have emerged under very specific historical developments. Actually, everyone would first have to describe, from what situation, on which basis he leads the discussion. What socialization has him led to it.

I must first point out that the U.S. and Germany are essentially different in one: Germany is a social state, the U.S. is it not. Secondly, I must establish that every nation is given the government which it has chosen, in free self-determination and on the basis of its constitution. The political class should be the image of the respective community. The politicians should then be neither better nor worse than the average of the population of the state. But stop!

1. The results of the elections are influenced by the respective framework conditions;

2. Such president how in the U.S., there could never be in Germany. So I'm not saying this is good or bad!

3. possible international links also affect the Member States. and

4. Globalization works in all countries of the world and not just positive,

5. The information society on the one hand brings us all so close to each other , on the other hand are there great possibilities for influence also on the decisions of states and so in elections.

6. In social situations, we are not only rational, especially in elections. This leads at the end to results that can not be explained rationally!

In such situations populists often have easy play, I will not complain at all. However, one should be vigilant in extreme left and right populists.

That`s all and exciting!

Kind Regards

Michael Lersow

I think that populism is an index for the departure of political system from common people's issues:

• when politics becomes elitist, then populism increases
• when politics solves daily life problems, then populism decreases

So, as all indices, it is not a bad or a good practice.

"The People vs. Democracy". "Liberal Democracy: Apple and Pie". "Populists have a darker interpretation".. .http://discovery.economist.com/features/21738862-yascha-mounks-diagnosis-more-convincing-his-cure-how-liberal-democracy-fell-apart-166049481?kw=all&csid=socialpr&ref=features

Dear friends,

every generation builds on the previous generation. No one can escape from his story, it is practically part of our "gene structure". Is not it amazing that especially populists claim to be able to do this.

The 45th American President e.g. is a member of the Republican Party, which has always been part of the US political system. If he claims that he wants to abolish the establishment, does he want to abolish his Republican Party as well? Or is the establishment only the Democratic Party? That would be suspicious, That's why he does not say that either.

In Europe, the line is also pretty clear. In addition to the old parties, we have quite a few new parties, such as the Movimento 5 Stelle in Italy, La République en Marche in France or the Alternative for Germany etc. The Front National in France has now renamed itself to Rassemblement National. Only to get a new image to give.

In the process, a populist general line has emerged. If national successes emerge, then this has caused the policy of the new party, if there are failures, then the EU was guilty. Maybe except En Marche.

As simple as that!!! Populists always promise simple solutions. But they do not exist in our complex world. And above all, social processes need time, especially in democracies. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way.

M.L.

Dear H.G. Callaway,

I agree with you, “our general economic and social prospects cannot be allowed to become a matter of "bait and switch!" However, unfortunately "bait and switch" worked and works fine as many historical and present examples testify them.

I hope also in your second phrase but theoretical principles and practical surviving highly differs from each other: “The domination of clever, insider and self-serving politics is no substitute for reasonable social and economic policy.”

Your third phrase is also an almost perfect moral, realization of which is in proportion with the cultural and education level of the population: "One can indeed learn a lot from each other but transfer very little."

In summary, the hope to get rid of a working populist system is a serious challenge at least for a human generation.

Dear Demetris,

You have hit the nail on the head:

- “when politics becomes elitist, then populism increases

- when politics solves daily life problems, then populism decreases”

Thus not only politics but also the full population should be “elitist”. I mean the population should be consisted of thinking, intelligent and highly educated people. And that would be our task!

@ András Bozsik: the hope to get rid of a working populist system is a serious challenge at least for a human generation.

I agree.

One factor underlying the growth of populism is the internet. For the first time in the history of humans, everyone with a cell phone can voice an opinion and post pictures.

Perhaps you will agree that there are few things more convincing than plain talk and evident situations portrayed in amateur pictures. The absence of smooth talk (common with politicians) and ordinary visual scenes is very persuasive. In the hands of a fairly bright common person with an ax to grind, it is fairly to see how a populist movement is started, flourishes and grows.

@ James F Peters

I also see the problem of the digitization of all areas of social life as the greatest challenge for the New Age societies.

Digitization will also increasingly determine the electoral fights up to the possibilities of manipulation of voting behavior of the voters. What until recently acitly as agreed was valid that for the advertising industry was not allowed, also for election campaigns to used such methods which like the buying behavior, influence the voting behavior. can cause the voters are manipulated in their voting behavior and thus no longer decide freely. 

In the election campaign for the 45th President of the United States, this was already overridden In my opinion, a clear set of rules should be agreed here and, like cybercrime, criminalized.

The hope that everything will self-regulated is out of place here.

M.L.

Michael, I just wanted to point out that Trump is not really a formulaic Republican. He is generally pro-business, so that aligns him more with Republicans, but many, many Republicans did not want him as their candidate, in 2016. He defies that kind of easy classification.

During the campaign, some of his views were more similar to those of Bernie Sanders, than they were to other Republicans. For example, on intervention overseas. Another example, only late in the game did he feel obliged to cater to the religious right. (The religious right were oddly attracted to the Republican party by Ronald Reagan. Before that, they were Democrats, primarily "Southern Democrats." Sounds ridiculous, yet it's true.) Trump's views on health care policy were also nothing like those of the rest of the Republican party. He was not completely opposed to the idea of universal health care.

It becomes difficult to get consistent and coherent positions from him, but I can say with some conviction that had Trump been a "true Republican," he would have lost the election. Almost certainly.

You ask whether Trump wants to abolish the Republican party as well? Probably yes. They are not the best of friends. Trump wants the Trump party.

Dear Albert,

I want to answer you within the question.

To begin with, Trump is, in my view, a national - right-wing populist who has waged a hitherto unprecedented election campaign, essentially following his advisor Bannon. The long-term goal is to fundamentally change the US legal system and transform liberal democracy into an autocratic legal system.

I believe and hope he will not make it.

We just have to wait until Friday, then we'll see what happens on the G7. It is difficult for the EU and especially for Germany because the US is our most important ally. In the interests of stability in the world, I hope that Europeans remain strong. They have the economic possibillities and capacity to do so. Military, of course, not.

According to the party system, Trump moves within the Republicans. The parties in the US can not be judged by European standards. For the Republicans as well as the Democrats, there are various currents that are almost independent parties. Again, we will see what comes out of the Midterm elections in November. If the Republicans lose the House of Representatives, they will try to capture Trump.

Michael

Michael, fortunately for everyone, the US president does not have the authority to change the government into an autocracy, nor can he change the legal system. So, I too believe that this cannot happen. And yes, Trump moves with the Republicans, but many Republicans have wanted him out, from the very beginning. That's one problem he has always had. Lack of support from his own party. Ironically, that's probably the only reason he won.

In my opinion, the US Republican party is similar in many ways to right or center-right European parties, and the Democrats are the leftist parties. Some, like Bernie Sanders, quite far left. At the very least, equal in outlook to European Socialist parties. (Which is why I doubt Bernie Sanders could have won. Even if he hadn't been cheated by the Clinton campaign, during the primaries.)

I know some Dems who like to deny this loudly, but it's not only the case, it is increasingly the case. After Ronald Reagan, the Republican party has become increasingly more conservative, more religious, more rural in its constituents, as it acquired the Southern Democrats of the past. An odd group of very conservative people, many from the rural South of the US, who had virtually NOTHING in common with the other Democrats. Yet, they could not make themselves vote Republican, because the Republican party is "the party of Lincoln." (Abraham Lincoln, president during the US Civil War.) This was something that conservative southerners could not stomach.

So yes, decades ago, the Democrats had some conservative membership. Much less today. That's part of the reason for the bigger polarization in politics. The Democrats have far less reason to appeal to conservatives, and many more balanced Republicans have become disenfrachised with their party too. Take a look at what Colin Powell has said, about his party. Perfect example.

But Trump is none of that super conservative, religious, rural, that seems to have pervaded the Republican party these days. During the campaign, the discord between Trump and the Republican party was constant and obvious.

The other ironic thing is this Russia probe. In the past, the Democrats were the party least opposed to the Soviet Union. Now suddenly, the Democrats think the Russians are evil, the only reason Trump could have won.

Dear James F Peters,

The problem is that the number and proportion of people able to be oriented in internet, and to have a somehow objective opinion is too variable. In Hungary, they are a tiny minority.

Populism, political program or movement that champions the common person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite. Populism usually combines elements of the left and the right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established socialist and labour parties.

The amorphous phenomenon of populism was another feature of the mid-20th-century political scene. Its consummate practitioner was Juan Perón of Argentina, who as a member of a military regime that seized power in 1943 took a special interest in social policy. Perón wooed Argentine…

The term populism can designate either democratic or authoritarian movements. Populism is typically critical of political representation and anything that mediates the relation between the people and their leader or government. In its most democratic form, populism seeks to defend the interest and maximize the power of ordinary citizens, through reform rather than revolution. In the United States the term was applied to the program of the Populist Movement, which gave rise to the Populist, or People’s, Party in 1892. Many of the party’s demands were later adopted as laws or constitutional amendments (e.g., a progressive tax system). The populist demand for direct democracy through popular initiatives and referenda also become a reality in a number of U.S. states.

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarianform of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolves around a charismatic leader who appeals to and claims to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate his own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than to reflect the different allegiances of the people. In the second half of the 20th century, populism came to be identified with the political style and program of Latin American leaders such as Juan Perón, Getúlio Vargas, and Hugo Chávez. Populist is often used pejoratively to criticize a politician for pandering to a people’s fear and enthusiasm. Depending on one’s view of populism, a populist economic program can therefore signify either a platform that promotes the interest of common citizens and the country as a whole or a platform that seeks to redistribute wealth to gain popularity, without regard to the consequences for the country such as inflation or debt.

reference/https://www.britannica.com/topic/populism

regards

Dear Albert Manfredi and others,

I used to read with a little envy the opportunities and conditions of countries with real democratic traditions. Even populism or demagogy cannot cause really serious and long-lasting perturbations in these states compared with other countries practically without democratic antecedents.

It is good to dream a bit.

Dear Albert,

Of course, Trump can not change the legal system in the US alone and independently, but he can weaken it by permanent attacks so that it is then changed. So to say; knock up to it is soft

He attacks almost everything head on, what America has helped to develop after World War II. The rule of law, the democratic press, the WTO, the EU, NATO etc. In Germany there is now a sentence, that is, who has such friends, who needs no enemies.

The Europeans are the only ones who can offer paroli (economically). I hope they do it. Wait until tomorrow.

The American parties and electoral system is completely different than in Germany. You can not compare the parties. However, there are political tendencies in Europe that are similar to those in the US. It seems that Europe is at a condensation point. The discussions are slowly developing up.

The Democrats have lost the presidential election because setting up a woman alone is not enough to win against Trump.

M.L.

One should get populism in politics by doing good for people.

Of course there are people who enetered politics by populism in different fields for e.g. film actors. Some of the people performed well.

Recent politics just for attacting people and get power using this kind of tricks.

Nowadays politics are hopeless, in my country for. e.g BJP want to dominate entire country, now losing the grip so they are using caste based populism by using actors. I do not support this. Just for power sake making allegation against good administrators like our current Chief Minister Naidu. Our PM is losing value for his cheap tricks.

Dear friends,

If I look at the behavior of US President D. Trump from his inauguration until today, both language, facial expressions, communication behavior, etc., I ask myself, is the term populist right here?

Is Donald Trump a populist? Or is Donald Trump a driven man, who always his own EGO stands in the way? And does this behavior not shows unreliability, especially to US allies? But, an alliance is always based on reliability

M.L.

It seems to me that in the political sphere it has two connotations:

• One of them is that the leader or ruler orient their social policies to marginalized groups or those who have less without forgetting the other social groups, and this is fully recognized, meritorious and praiseworthy.
• The other is pejorative, that of describing the populist as a demagogue; In this case, those who usually use this qualification are the members of the oligarchy, who feel threatened in their status and way of life, which has generally been won at the expense of the poorest population of a certain country.

regards Jose Luis

José Luis García Vigil,

There are also populists who come from poorer classes. If their populism leads to an improvement and policy and an increase in popular welfare, this is not negative.

I agree with you.

M.L.

Very interesting query and discussion as well.

Populism is not enough to select the state heads in present political systems. The systems are essential to look out and search potent individuals from which one person could be selected by the people. Often application of money proves some one to be popular, which can't be enough to be a good administrator and leader. That is my personal perception.

What are your thoughts on voting? Does it even made a difference? "Presidents are selected, not elected." Theodore Roosevelt — с Lekan Charles Agunbiade, David Andrews, Valentine Oduenyi,Vinay Bharat, Nela Neli, Zubir Bhat, Waqar Ahmad,Ambreen Noreen, Vishal Mishra, Bright Side Of Life,Life Lessons By AwePost и Eclectic KARMA

https://www.facebook.com/CollectiveEvolutionPage/photos/a.10151198752138908.475684.131929868907/10154211469368908/?type=3&theater

Dear Irina,

many thanks for the many proverbs, but can we all used for our daily life?

I think we will be then us twisted around our own axis.

Regards

Michael