Campaign like a populist, govern like an elite

When Donald Trump ran for president, he sounded like a populist. He attacked the elites. He promised to help the working class. He championed economic nationalism, vowing to put “America first.”

"Today we are not just transferring power from one administration to another,” Trump said in his inauguration speech, “but we are transferring power from Washington, DC, and giving it back to you, the people."

Now that he’s in office, Trump is governing like conventional right-wing Republican. The policies he’s promoted would lead to more privatization, more tax breaks for the rich, more spending cuts for welfare programs like Social Security and Medicaid. He’s also studded his administration with bankers and billionaires and industry lobbyists.

This is not the stuff of populism.

The differences between candidate Trump and President Trump raise a few questions. First, is Trump actually a populist? And if so, how unusual is it, either in America or elsewhere, for a populist to abandon his agenda once he’s elected?

Perhaps most importantly, what tends to happen when a populist fails to deliver on all those promises? Is there a revolt? Do voters flee?

tGreenWay wrote:Thank god he ain't hiring no poors.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:Thank god he ain't hiring no poors.

Which means we all qualified to work in his administration. The best thing about tSwill over 247 is that poors are not allowed here.

Turtleneck wrote:

When Donald Trump ran for president, he sounded like a populist. He attacked the elites. He promised to help the working class. He championed economic nationalism, vowing to put “America first.”

"Today we are not just transferring power from one administration to another,” Trump said in his inauguration speech, “but we are transferring power from Washington, DC, and giving it back to you, the people."

Now that he’s in office, Trump is governing like conventional right-wing Republican. The policies he’s promoted would lead to more privatization, more tax breaks for the rich, more spending cuts for welfare programs like Social Security and Medicaid. He’s also studded his administration with bankers and billionaires and industry lobbyists.

This is not the stuff of populism.

The differences between candidate Trump and President Trump raise a few questions. First, is Trump actually a populist? And if so, how unusual is it, either in America or elsewhere, for a populist to abandon his agenda once he’s elected?

Perhaps most importantly, what tends to happen when a populist fails to deliver on all those promises? Is there a revolt? Do voters flee?

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/23/15791432/donald-trump-populism-latin-america-republican-party

President Trump was swept into office by a populist wave enthralled by his promise of better jobs and a tax cut for the middle class.

But in his first major legislative effort, changing health care laws, he is faced with a bitter populist backlash that has splintered the Republican Party and put his entire agenda on the ropes.

The Senate’s health care bill, which was put on hold Tuesday, would repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act, cap future spending on Medicaid, and cut roughly $700 billion in taxes over 10 years.

Some of these tax cuts would benefit primarily the wealthy, because their capital gains rates would be lowered. And the Medicaid cuts would disproportionately impact the poor, as it is a program run by states and the federal government delivering health benefits for low-income Americans.

A coincidence? I don’t think so. A new Harvard report suggests that populists typically heighten risks of electoral malpractices through three main mechanisms: damaging public trust in democratic processes, undermining international standards of electoral integrity, and colluding with Russian interference in Western contests.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/05/16/why-populism-is-a-threat-to-electoral-integrity/

Turtleneck wrote:Why populism is a threat to electoral integrity

A coincidence? I don’t think so. A new Harvard report suggests that populists typically heighten risks of electoral malpractices through three main mechanisms: damaging public trust in democratic processes, undermining international standards of electoral integrity, and colluding with Russian interference in Western contests.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/05/16/why-populism-is-a-threat-to-electoral-integrity/

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Why populism is a threat to electoral integrity

There is right wing populism, taken tot he extreme becoming nationalism and eventually fascism

There is left wing populism, taken to the extreme becoming socialism and eventually a socialist state.  

They are very different things.  Though both CAN lead to an oppressive state, this person appears to be talking about right wing populism.

Rocinante wrote:I will read it, but it appears she's calling what I call left wing populism something else.

This book starts with the observation that, for all the talk about populism— the Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev, one of the sharpest analysts of democratic life today, has even called our time an “Age of Populism”— it is far from obvious that we know what we are talking about.1 We simply do not have anything like a theory of populism, and we seem to lack coherent criteria for deciding when political actors turn populist in some meaningful sense.

First, I want to give an account of what kind of political actor qualifies as populist. I argue that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be critical of elites in order to count as a populist. Otherwise, anyone criticizing the status quo in, for instance, Greece, Italy, or the United States would by definition be a populist— and, whatever else one thinks about Syriza, Beppe Grillo’s insurgent Five Star Movement, or Sanders, for that matter, it’s hard to deny that their attacks on elites can often be justified.

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:I will read it, but it appears she's calling what I call left wing populism something else.

I do not like the terms left/right populism. I prefer progressive populism and reactionary populism. In the paper, what I call progressive populism is captured by what the authors call cosmopolitan liberalism. However, populism is not all that ideological so distinguishing along ideological grounds - which the moniker progressive does do - is problematic.

What is Populism? by Jan-Werner Muller is a very good book and brings some definition to populism. Here are a couple passages.

This book starts with the observation that, for all the talk about populism— the Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev, one of the sharpest analysts of democratic life today, has even called our time an “Age of Populism”— it is far from obvious that we know what we are talking about.1 We simply do not have anything like a theory of populism, and we seem to lack coherent criteria for deciding when political actors turn populist in some meaningful sense.

First, I want to give an account of what kind of political actor qualifies as populist. I argue that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be critical of elites in order to count as a populist. Otherwise, anyone criticizing the status quo in, for instance, Greece, Italy, or the United States would by definition be a populist— and, whatever else one thinks about Syriza, Beppe Grillo’s insurgent Five Star Movement, or Sanders, for that matter, it’s hard to deny that their attacks on elites can often be justified.

From there, Muller goes on to say populists are antipluralist and represent a form of identity politics. Muller then says populist governments are marked by an attempt to hijack the state apparatus, corruption, and clientelism. It drops left/right or other references to more ideological values and thinks of populism in more pragmatic terms.

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I do not like the terms left/right populism. I prefer progressive populism and reactionary populism. In the paper, what I call progressive populism is captured by what the authors call cosmopolitan liberalism. However, populism is not all that ideological so distinguishing along ideological grounds - which the moniker progressive does do - is problematic.

What is Populism? by Jan-Werner Muller is a very good book and brings some definition to populism. Here are a couple passages.





From there, Muller goes on to say populists are antipluralist and represent a form of identity politics. Muller then says populist governments are marked by an attempt to hijack the state apparatus, corruption, and clientelism. It drops left/right or other references to more ideological values and thinks of populism in more pragmatic terms.

That sounds reasonable, but movements that begin populist, and sweep new forces into power, historically have proven to evolve in very different ways.  Nazis were populist in the beginning, as were the Bolsheviks.  I dislike getting too deep into defining terminology, though. It's like art... I can't tell you a cubist from a futurist, but I know what I like, and what feels true to me.

During the campaign, President Trump promised he'd close Wall Street's big tax loophole at the same time that he quietly proposed giving it a much bigger one. But, in an amazing coincidence, his administration is backing off that first part now that it's not sure it can do the second.

It's funny how Trump's brand of populism only seems to benefit the top 1 percent of the top 1 percent.

That, after all, is who uses the carried interest loophole. That's the rule that lets financiers like venture capitalists and private equity managers have the performance fees they receive for investing other people's money taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 23.8 percent instead of the top ordinary income rate of 39.6 percent. Even Trump, who erroneously believes that this helps hedge fund managers more than anybody else (it doesn't because they're usually not investing in things for the 12 months it also takes to qualify for the long-term capital gains rate), thinks that the people who take advantage of this are “getting away with murder” since they're “making a lot of money” but “aren't paying anything.” Which, of course, is why Trump wants to get rid of this loophole and … replace it with an even more unjustifiable one?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm not convinced that the sexual predator even campaigned as "populist" - sure, he used lots of populist messages, etc - but he was just really attempting to appeal to the lowbrow racist, bigoted demographic - to appeal to their fears, their paranoia and tap into whatever misplaced anger and rage they might have.

fear, hate, anger and rage are all very strong motivators and we saw that play out in the worst way possible.

Turtleneck wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm not convinced that the sexual predator even campaigned as "populist" - sure, he used lots of populist messages, etc - but he was just really attempting to appeal to the lowbrow racist, bigoted demographic - to appeal to their fears, their paranoia and tap into whatever misplaced anger and rage they might have.

fear, hate, anger and rage are all very strong motivators and we saw that play out in the worst way possible.

He definitely campaigned as a populist. When you think about populism comparatively, it is nothing more than messages and strategy that support an exclusionary brand of politics.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:


He definitely campaigned as a populist. When you think about populism comparatively, it is nothing more than messages and strategy that support an exclusionary brand of politics.

he campaigned as a racist, bigoted misogynist... it's unfortunate that that equates to "populism".

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm not convinced that the sexual predator even campaigned as "populist" - sure, he used lots of populist messages, etc - but he was just really attempting to appeal to the lowbrow racist, bigoted demographic - to appeal to their fears, their paranoia and tap into whatever misplaced anger and rage they might have.

fear, hate, anger and rage are all very strong motivators and we saw that play out in the worst way possible.

Turtleneck wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
he campaigned as a racist, bigoted misogynist... it's unfortunate that that equates to "populism".

A comparative and historical understanding of populism - looking at the history of populist movements around the world - sheds a lot of light on Trump's populism. Populism has often been about a narrow definition of "the people."

kingstonlake wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I'm not convinced that the sexual predator even campaigned as "populist" - sure, he used lots of populist messages, etc - but he was just really attempting to appeal to the lowbrow racist, bigoted demographic - to appeal to their fears, their paranoia and tap into whatever misplaced anger and rage they might have.

fear, hate, anger and rage are all very strong motivators and we saw that play out in the worst way possible.

His tenure as a reality TV personality doomed this country. Him and his people adequately tapped into and realized how ignorant, bigoted, and bitter Americans are. They understood what people will digest and take as real. He built his whole campaign and recognized how stupid people in this country are. They bought it Hook line and sinker. And why wouldn't they? Look what people watch and find entertaining.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

A comparative and historical understanding of populism - looking at the history of populist movements around the world - sheds a lot of light on Trump's populism. Populism has often been about a narrow definition of "the people."

that's fine and dandy - in my house and among my peers, "populism" revolves not around hate, anger and racism..  but around healthcare, climate change, education, income disparity, etc.

I guess I'm old fashioned.

Turtleneck wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
that's fine and dandy - in my house and among my peers, "populism" revolves not around hate, anger and racism..  but around healthcare, climate change, education, income disparity, etc.

I guess I'm old fashioned.

Maybe at your house and among your peers populism is understudied, and therefore underspecified.

GRR Spartan wrote:WOTS is President Trump is going to reverse the Obama administration's policy limiting police department's ability to procure and use military weapons and vehicles in  local law enforcement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/27/us/politics/trump-military-equipment-police.amp.html

GRR Spartan wrote:WOTS is President Trump is going to reverse the Obama administration's policy limiting police department's ability to procure and use military weapons and vehicles in local law enforcement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/27/us/politics/trump-military-equipment-police.amp.html

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Maybe at your house and among your peers populism is understudied, and therefore underspecified.

maybe. Most definitely.

As numerous congressional figures have made clear, however, the motivation behind the proposal is simple. They believe it is time to punish universities for their opposition to Republican positions and their advancement of what they see as “political correctness.” I have some sympathy with concerns about ideological diversity at universities, but using the tax system to punish them is inconsistent with any reasonable principle of taxation and with the idea of a free society. If sectors of our society come to think that they cannot speak out on issues of public concern for fear of retribution, our democracy will be traduced.

Second, the targeting by the Justice Department of the proposed AT&T-Time Warner merger invites suspicion of selective prosecution. There are, to be sure, legitimate arguments for attacking vertical combinations of the type this deal represents, and many across the political spectrum have called for enhanced antitrust enforcement. But, again, the circumstances here are suspicious.


In every other area of public policy, the administration has come down on the side of more freedom for businesses to do as they wish and reliance on market forces rather than on regulatory discipline. Indeed, the administration’s position on net neutrality only makes sense if one is relatively unconcerned with the possibility of carriers like AT&T having monopoly power. Moreover, the head of the antitrust division, Makan Delrahim, was recently of the view that the merger was not problematic. And rumors that President Trump’s anger with CNN could affect the merger have been pervasive, with Trump taking the extraordinary step of publicly commenting on Justice Department enforcement actions