The One Personality Trait That is Ripping America (And the World) Apart

submitted by Mnemonic from (blogs.scientificamerican.com)

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The core feature of populism is an anti-establishment message and a focus on the central importance of the people. The anti-establishment message portrays the political elite as corrupt and evil, and disinterested in the interests of "the pure people". According to John Judis and Ruy Teixeira, the essential divide among populists is "the people versus the powerful."

God forbid someone stand up against the status quo and advocate for what the common people want. This article is akin to propaganda as far as I can tell. It's basically saying "anyone who goes against the government status quo has a aggression problem which indicates a problem with their brain"

I find this attitude downright dystopian.

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The quote you made is part of the introductory bit of the blog where populism in explained through various lenses, not what anti-establishment is (or if that's good/bad/neutral). It even paint populism rather favorably a bit later:

It's important to emphasize that populism is an ideology that transcends liberalism and conservatism.

and while still talking about Populism transcending them both:

Conservatism and liberalism can complement each other; society needs those in power who care deeply about the fairness of everyone and the stability of society as well as those who are more exclusively concerned with the suffering of those in need. It's also important to recognize that populism alone isn't necessarily dangerous. A healthy democracy will include those who challenge the government, and are critical of those in power.

It doesn't paint people in broad strokes:

Of course, not all people who support populism are antagonistic people. There are a number of reasons why people support populists.

The reasons include "lives ripped apart by stagnant wages, a loss of home, an elusive American dream- and political choices and views that make sense in the context of their lives."

a critical reason why people have become more receptive to populism is that people have become better educated and more free to speak their views in public. In fact, the appeal of populism is due, in part, to the increased egalitarianism of the 1960s, a consequence being that citizens today expect more from politicians, and feel more competence to judge their actions.

The whole article is about escalating behavior and how it's influenced by rhetoric. aka the so dubbed 'Antagonism-Agreeableness Divide'.

It's basically saying "anyone who goes against the government status quo has a aggression problem which indicates a problem with their brain"

It is not, it's about the rhetoric to entice people (like how populism can be/is used by the government to implement extreme measures people would normally be against [ahem {patriot act}]).

From the concluding paragraph:

Understanding differences in personality may not be the only factor involved in understanding the appeal of populism, but for the sake of the country and the world, it's an important one to consider.

Which is an anti-establishment message, if the people know how they are played they can adapt. (It's nice to have a person preach what you think, but is she/he going to hold that up when elected?)

.1 Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies, religious organizations and the media can also produce propaganda. [Which one would this article be?]

.2 I would also like to note that there are plenty of 'anti-establishment' messages that certainly cause a dystopia: 'WWIII WHEN!?', 'RACE WAR NOW!'. Being anti-establishment just means that and doesn't say anything about the message, ideas or ideals behind it. A notorious anti-establishment figure did this once: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch and we all know how that ended.

'the people versus the powerful' does sound a lot like 'the proletariat vs the capitalists'

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

(It's nice to have a person preach what you think, but is she/he going to hold that up when elected?)

This is not something unique to "populist" politicians, not by a long shot.

[–]Mnemonic[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You seem to classify a person/movement as populist(s), while it's actually the practice of preaching what people want. (Following popular opinion and transforming that momentum to either get the will of the people done, or perhaps push through your own agenda under the guise of 'this is what the people want').

wikipedia:

In politics, populism refers to a range of approaches which emphasise the role of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite".

Which in practice is every politician who talks about what 'the people' want as opposed from how it's now done.

A populist politician by the standard of the media is someone who does this a lot in practice, often found commenting on recent events but not trying to fix the problem with practical solutions. A sound-bit/one-liner dealer.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A populist politician by the standard of the media is someone who does this a lot in practice, often found commenting on recent events but not trying to fix the problem with practical solutions. A sound-bit/one-liner dealer.

Isn't that literally every politician?

while it's actually the practice of preaching what people want.

That's how I also define populism. But it seems not to be how the media defines it.

[–]Mnemonic[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Isn't that literally every politician?

Hmm, maybe in America with the two party system. In the Netherlands you can kinda see why they are branded like that in the media, for convenience sake a bit. But there are always times a 'populist' party isn't being populist and well, that makes it a 'meh' brand. I really dislike it being used that way too in public debate, as if it means something... Like almost talking about 'the populists' is being a populist.

But it seems not to be how the media defines it.

Yes, they took it somewhere around 2006 as a slang word (at least in Europe). Though, in The Netherlands, they also talk in the Media about populist ideas of parties not called populist.

The fun part are the people who are 'proud populists' and see it as some sort of political branding meme.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ah very good points. I had never thought about "populism" in a multi-party system before. I can see it being kind of diluted in that context. I imagine single-issue parties do better in multi-party systems. Unlike in the US where creating a new party that gets any power is much more difficult.

I see no problem at all with populism per se. Just like socialism. But the devil is in the details. If it's implemented in an authoritarian way, then it's bad. If it's done in a grassroots organic sort of way, I think these systems can work great. Same with capitalism. But authoritarian capitalism becomes corporatism or oligarchy, authoritarian socialism becomes communism or a dictatorship, and authoritarian populism becomes a dictatorship as well.

The problem is authoritarianism. That seems to be where it always goes wrong. The only problem is that no authority often leaves it open to being compromised by stronger external forces, who then in turn become authoritarian. It's like a prisoners dilemma situation.

[–]Mnemonic[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The problem is authoritarianism. That seems to be where it always goes wrong. The only problem is that no authority often leaves it open to being compromised by stronger external forces, who then in turn become authoritarian.

Yes I agree, and also as always 'the people' themselves and (not always) the lack of self-knowledge in relation to these political tools.