Populism II

David Frum does a good job at explaining why the new populist upsurge isn’t an intrinsically rightist phenomenon:

They aren’t necessarily superconservative. They often don’t think in ideological terms at all. But they do strongly feel that life in this country used to be better for people like them—and they want that older country back.

You hear from people like them in many other democratic countries too. Across Europe, populist parties are delivering a message that combines defense of the welfare state with skepticism about immigration; that denounces the corruption of parliamentary democracy and also the risks of global capitalism. Some of these parties have a leftish flavor, like Italy’s Five Star Movement. Some are rooted to the right of center, like the U.K. Independence Party. Some descend from neofascists, like France’s National Front. Others trace their DNA to Communist parties, like Slovakia’s governing Direction–Social Democracy.

These populists seek to defend what the French call “acquired rights”—health care, pensions, and other programs that benefit older people — against bankers and technocrats who endlessly demand austerity; against migrants who make new claims and challenge accustomed ways; against a globalized market that depresses wages and benefits. In the United States, they lean Republican because they fear the Democrats want to take from them and redistribute to Americans who are newer, poorer, and in their view less deserving—to “spread the wealth around,” in candidate Barack Obama’s words to “Joe the Plumber” back in 2008. Yet they have come to fear more and more strongly that their party does not have their best interests at heart.

It’s built for compromise, delusion, and heart-ache. (Interesting, of course, nonetheless.)

December 30, 2015admin 39 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Pass the popcorn

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

39 Responses to this entry

  • Alrenous Says:

    Irony being health care and pensions don’t benefit the elderly. They’re what’s depressing wages and standard of living, not foreign trade. Populism: when strangling yourself gets old, try this different grip.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    whats depressing wages as well as raising costs and lowering buying power is massive third world immigration. Its also destroying quality of life and safety, education ,and a thousand other variables. Socialism is bad but its self limiting Russia and China are recovering, Demographic replacement is forever.South Africa is the Wests future and SA isnt finished until its Haiti.If NRX didnt spend its time Larping the middle ages and snarking like some drag queen out of Gataca at everything while producing nothing but sci fi then it might have candidates in Trumps, LePens, Farange,Wilders, et als position.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Brilliant Michael – Bravo.

    The price of survival is nationalism. The price of power for nationalism getting into power is socialism – so pay it.

    The leaders now of Europeans from Russia to America realize this and are paying the price of power.

    Not entirely unreasonable of course when you pay on every paycheck to expect some sort of insurance policy being there….but that’s a trivial concern next to genocide.

    Notice in the article Frum’s diagnosis is spot on – but his medicine is either ignore or trick the voters. He cannot bring himself to recommend their reasonable demands for survival both economic and existential – both food and shelter immediately and avoiding our genocide longer term – he cannot bring himself to same.

    He can only recommend manipulating the procedural outcome by new deceits of the GOP voters.

    Congenital it is.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    populism is already national

    TheDividualist Reply:

    Michael,

    The weird part is that it is not really immigration immigration. Somehow everybody is ignoring this most glaring aspect. I mean, if you are an OK car mechanic from Egypt and you go to the embassy asking is there any chance of getting a work and residence permit to Germany, they’ll tell you to fuck off: car mechanics are not a scarce profession, there are no work visa quotas, kthxbai. Largely, only doctors, professors, and maybe software developers can immigrate such “clean” ways and their number is small and their IQ high so they are even good to have. Instead, the mass immigration is something else, it is not immigration in the normal, “apply for a work permit” sense.

    It is largely:

    1) asylum seeking, real or fake
    2) family reunions, real or fake
    3) illegals
    4) fsck knows what, it is a mess

    My point is: instead of a positive, eugenic filter like giving work visas to qualified people, the West currently employs a negative, dysgenic filter, of taking in people who can work well the murky rules of fake refugee status and fake family reunions.

    This isn’t really immigration as such, not in the usual sense. It is a massive asylum and family reunion fraud industry or something like that. It is a very adverse type of selection.

    I don’t know why everybody calls it immigration, we should stop it. It is not anything like normal immigration, like people with professions applying for work and residence permits, none at all. It is something entirely different and we should use a different name now. Normal immigration – taking in law-abiding people with professions who apply for permits and visas – would be the LEAST bad way to do it, actually.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    If demographic replacement is forever, then wouldn’t the un-undoable demographic replacement already have happened.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    I takes much for it to happen, but it’s certainly reversible:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)

    michael Reply:

    And BTW please explain how health care and pensions dont benefit the elderly because I cant see how to retire without them.What are you 20

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Yeah 20 and has yet to have full time job.

    “I’m a Gamer” etc.

    In America we’re not allowed to retire in terms of medical care without going thru the state, the NHS has existed for decades in effect once you’re past 65.

    If you were part of not even 1% but even smaller in terms of liquid wealth you could go all cash – but again that’s not even 1% and you’d probably be flouting the statutes.

    As far as pensions/social security some modest security is due given the pay in.

    Not to mention that everyone’s been looting it for decades in the USA. It’s broke because it’s been looted for 50 years.

    Give them governments that don’t hate them and effect their genocide by proxy through open borders in and drive all industries out and they’ll listen to reforming the benefits.

    No you don’t trust our current govts to reform. Reform to them is an opportunity for more looting and harm to their nations.

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    VXXC, if you substitute the word, “humiliation”, for “harm”, I think it would make the motivation clearer.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    The only solution is to privatise the government.

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Mr. Taylor,

    I will agree that humiliation is a signature of their harm.

    As is porn.

    It’s actually pretty unwise to goad animals even if they’re penned.

    The Great recursive Category Error of our Time is mistaking the primate for the bovine, simply because it’s been awhile since the primates ripped your face off.

    Alrenous Reply:

    Public choice theorem. Look into it.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Alas, only real sciences get to have theorems.

    Xoth Reply:

    Mathematics is not a science.

    Public choice is quite amenable to proof, have a look at Condorcet for starters. Democracy is rubbish not only in practice, but also in theory.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Mathematics is a science.

    Exfernal Reply:

    Liberal paradox as well.

    Posted on December 30th, 2015 at 11:23 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    potential electorate for technologically enchansed democracies

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2015 at 1:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • Populism II | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 30th, 2015 at 2:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    Before you come back with the but we dont want democracy MM “proved it futile” he also proved its a farce that once you own the cathedral you can do whatever you damn well please and call it ice cream. and that was 15 years ago if martial law was announced no one would blink today. The left even might welcome being saved from the course they are on.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Indeed Mike the Left is so good at poppy cropping they have no one left to surrender to, none to forgive their sins.

    Are you a Leftist reading this? Vote Nationalist. You don’t deserve it but Trump, Geert Wilders, UKIP and the rest are your best chance of survival.

    Thwart them and yes by God and Gnon it’s Hitler. Well deserved, but I’m concerned about senseless destruction. Your destruction sensible. If you’re offered a graceful escape from power and it’s responsibilities – and horrific bills you’ve run up coming due – then you’d be utterly suicidal not to take the chance to pass the buck and escape.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    as long as we talk about populism, once you become a populist, right and left does no matter anymore and you will change your political preferences real fast as it suits you to get votes. example Syriza formed coalition with right wing Independent Greeks party.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    populism is one of those words like fascist and racist doesnt really mean anything except the person calling you it doesnt like you and what youre doing. Ive been an extreme capitalist since about 73 and reading ayn rand as a teen. But people like insurance against the unforeseen and foreseen, theres no reason these plans have to be socialist.The proles dont even get that the math doesnt add up most are virulently anti welfare. Its elites that like welfare both for the immigrant and themselves [corporate welfare etc] so your populist meme thats supposed to convey proles voting themselves free stuff is just wrong its not the problem the problem is elites not proles and immigrants and non whites not proles.The proles are also the only ones that give a shit about western civilization and culture anymore too. And genetically white proles contribute as many high IQ citizens as elites do.What some of you seem to want is just a more extreme version of what we already have only you get to play Hillary.If one of you invents an actual alternative to government and a way to implement it great in the meantime the human race is about to swamped by drowning apes and something anything needs to be done right now. youre missing the last opportunity the cathedral is finishing up its death star weapon but still vulnerable and enough people are ready to listen the true financial cost of diversity is probably ten times the trillion we spend in the US a year on welfare. whats the cost of half of out best and brightest dedicating their careers to multiculturalist apologists, Whats the productivity cost of affirmative action, what does the police court prison system cost, whats the cost of crime, what does diversity cost the medical and education systems, whats the cost insurance banking, how much are the diversity shakedowns costing. I could go on for pages of hidden costs of diversity yet you guys are worried about that rare indian programmer chinese biologist, we can have a guest worker program and thai food we cant have this.

    Exfernal Reply:

    Format your wall of text please, otherwise nobody would read it.

    Even if proles in raw numbers produce more high IQ individuals than elites, that only reflects the differences in their relative population sizes. It’s concentration of high IQ social capital that matters. With the overabundance of available information we have now, pulling off “a lone genius polymath” approach is much less promising than assembling a team of individuals whose expertise complements each other.

    Posted on December 30th, 2015 at 2:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    new populist upsurge

    Isn’t it a continuation of the first one in 2008 & 2009? it seems like every time someone is unhappy , it’s a revolution, in which case there is always a revolution somewhere.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2015 at 3:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    Can we describe the refusal of the political class to follow the wishes of voters on immigration, foreign wars, trade, etc. as a revolt?

    Because I feel that it is the political class that has gone off the reservation.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    “Can we describe the refusal of the political class to follow the wishes of voters on immigration, foreign wars, trade, etc. as a revolt?”

    I’d say that’s closer to ‘illegitimacy’ than revolt. Although as far as I’m aware, NRx is generally going to indict US/EU foreign policy because it doesn’t work, rather than because it goes against the wishes of voters.

    [Reply]

    D. Reply:

    In a democracy, the political class has no need to follow the wishes of voters on policy; it merely needs to ensure that elections are won by those from, or subservient to, the political class.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Yes the political class is revolting against their people- someone [Codevilla?] called it The Revolt of the Elites.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2015 at 8:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    “defense of the welfare state”

    Cucks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2015 at 9:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • Bob Says:

    David Frum does a good job at explaining why the new populist upsurge isn’t an intrinsically rightist phenomenon:

    The new populist upsurge is animated by many of the same elements as the old populist upsurge that supported FDR and the New Deal and helped elect FDR to 4 terms: Southerners, working-class whites, Catholics, northern ethnics, etc. The GOP was basically a pro-business elite and northern WASP party that picked up these elements more or less by default in the 70s and 80s as they left the Democratic Party. These upsurges aren’t very ideological and are driven by the failure of the political class to deliver material benefits.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    Mark Fisher: ‘ their ‘problem was that the future had already happened, so all you could do was get on board with it or not: and that produced a kind of self-hating impotence’.

    [Reply]

    Bob Reply:

    Here’s some data regarding my point:

    “Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html

    Donald Trump holds a dominant position in national polls in the Republican race in no small part because he is extremely strong among people on the periphery of the G.O.P. coalition.

    He is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote. His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It’s a coalition that’s concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 30th, 2015 at 11:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • D. Says:

    Frum is able to cast the upsurge against the Republican Establishment as centrist because he identifies the Right primarily with corporatist business interests (more immigration both high- and low-skilled, less taxes on the wealthy, cuts to entitlement programs) and secondarily with the evangelical bloc that is ideologically similar to the Catholic/Christian Democrat parties found in various European countries. Those backing Trump are, on the whole, certainly to the Right of the Republican Establishment, which is content to serve as the Outer Party, never seriously challenging the left-ward ratchet.

    Moving from Frum’s description to Frum’s prescription, he can’t seem to envision any kind of ‘reform’ immigration policy other than the blandly vague “Devise immigration policy to support wages, not undercut them.” And his notion of ‘changing the rules of the game” is that Republicans should fight for their policies at the state and local levels, never mind the prolonged decline of the power of state governments relative to the federal government, an imbalance that has reached a new low under Obama and would reach lower still with Hillary Clinton.

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2015 at 4:12 am Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    At least NRx will never be populist – or even popular.
    It’s hands are clean. It has no hands.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    if you do not have an idea about what is right you never can be wrong, sorry … sounds so impotent,

    [Reply]

    Posted on December 31st, 2015 at 8:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    What could be more conservative than “not thinking in ideological terms at all”?

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 4th, 2016 at 5:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2016/01/03) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] Land’s Populism II was interesting. Especially in the comments. He also says an Auld Lang Syne for the This is the […]

    Posted on January 6th, 2016 at 7:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2016/01/03) - SecuritySlagsSecuritySlags Says:

    […] Land s Populism II8 was interesting. Especially in the comments. He also says an Auld Lang Syne9 for the This is the […]

    Posted on January 10th, 2016 at 11:47 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment